Preamble

Morning Sitting

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair at Ten o'clock a.m.

PARLIAMENT (No. 2) BILL

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]

Clause 5

VOTING RIGHTS OF MINISTERS AND OTHER OFFICERS

Amendment proposed: No. 167: In page 4, line 29, at end insert:
'provided that the number of such offices does not exceed four'.—[Mr. Sheldon.]

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

10.0 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): As I have listened for an hour and 20 minutes so far, I think it may be convenient if I intervene at this point.

Mr. Heffer: On a pont of order, Mr. Irving. Do I take it that the Minister's intervention at this stage in no way implies a curtailment of the debate? Many hon. Members who have sat throughout the debate so far—it has only just begun on this Amendment—have a right to speak, have they not?

The Chairman: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Iremonger: On a point of order, Mr. Irving. There are many hon. Members on both sides, within your own vision now, who are waiting to make submissions——

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is proceeding to deal with a matter which I have ruled is not one for the Chair.

Mr. Iremonger: My point of order, Mr. Irving, is to ask whether it would be in order for the Minister to intervene a second time after he has heard the debate.

The Chairman: Order. The Minister may intervene whenever he wishes.

Mr. Rees: Perhaps it would be as well at this point to remind ourselves, in the context of the Amendment, what the Clause itself is about. Clause 5 makes special provision for Ministers and the holders of high judicial office to have voting rights. I remind the Committee also that paragraph 45 of the White Paper says:
In order to preserve the freedom of the Prime Minister in appointing Ministers of his choice and to ensure that a Minister in the House of Lords would be a voting member of that House, Ministers would also be exempted both from the attendance requirement and from the restriction on age.
In stating the purpose of the Amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) made clear that he was not concerned with the number of four as such; as he said, four was just a number, and it may be wrong or right. I accept that, and I shall in the main refer to the general principle. However, I shall wish to discuss the number of four in this context as it is opposite to the general argument.

Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend will realise that I wish to argue the case for the number four precisely in the terms of the Amendment.

Mr. Rees: I am sure that that will be taken into account.
It is pointed out in Appendix II to the White Paper that there are at present two Cabinet Ministers—this was in last November—and 13 other Ministers, including the Whips, in the House of Lords, and one of those Ministers spends most of his time out of the country. Moreover, as was briefly mentioned last night, two of the officers—the Clause refers to officers—are the Chief Opposition Whip and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lords. Therefore, if these two officers were still to receive remuneration, the number of Ministers would be down to two if the figure were to be four. Again, I accept that the figure four is just a figure put in for the sake of discussion.
However, although we are concerned with the question of principle, the number four which is proposed is not the world's best cockshy in the context of the number of Ministers in the Lords at the moment. Moreover, I must point out that the Amendment as drafted refers to officers. My hon. Friend is arguing that there should be only four Ministers in the


Government as a whole. In fact, there are nearer 100. The reference here is not just to the House of Lords. If I may say so with respect, the Amendment as drafted is silly since it is not just concerned with the House of Lords. It would make a nonsense if we voted in favour of an Amendment which would limit the number of Ministers to four over all.

Mr. Iremonger: How can the hon. Gentleman say that? The very first words of the Clause are,
A peer of first creation …".
We are talkng about peers of first creation being exempted, not about Ministers.

Mr. Rees: No. The Amendment deals with officers in general. I am firmly advised on that point. Nevertheless, we are concerned here with the argument in the context of principle. My hon. Friend developed his argument in terms of what is said in Appendix II.

Mr. Heffer: Nonsense!

Mr. Rees: There is no skin off my nose in a statement of that kind. We ought to get down to the principle, and I am advised that the Amendment as drafted is a nonsense.

Mr. Michael Foot: I understand what my hon. Friend says about the question of principle, but it is not satisfactory when he says that he is advised in that way. We want an explanation of how he thinks that the second part of the sentence is not governed by the first.

Mr. Heffer: May I help? Obviously, my hon. Friend's advice is bad advice. The words of the Clause are,
… for the time being the holder of an office to which this section applies".
We are talking about a Bill dealing with the House of Lords.

Mr. Rees: Literally, the Amendment would provide that peers who hold Ministerial office could vote ex officio only if the number of such offices—not the number of peers holding such offices—were not more than four. That is the point at which I stick.

Mr. Iremonger: It is "such offices", so the offices refer to the offices to which the Clause relates.

Mr. Rees: The words of the Amendment are "such offices", not "the number of peers holding such offices". However, I accept that in discussing the overall principle one relates the argument to what my hon. Friend has in mind. I can only say that my advice—which I accept—is as I have stated it, and I put it to the Committee that way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne related his argument to Appendix II and quoted the speech of the Lord Chancellor. I remind the Committee that in paragraph 1 of Appendix II we are told:
The ideas it puts forward do not represent formal proposals by the Government or by the Conference and they are reproduced only for the purpose of illustration; they are in any event on matters which would have to be considered by the Houses themselves. They might, however, form the basis for further study by a joint select committee once the reform has taken place and may be thought helpful to indicate some of the wider advantages which might accrue to the British parliamentary system from a reform of the kind proposed.
The Appendix goes on in paragraph 2 to point out that,
it might be necessary, in order to obtain full advantage from an improved flow of legislation from one House to the other, to increase the number of Cabinet and other Ministers in the House of Lords.

Mr. John Lee: That is all very well in a general discussion in a White Paper, but if one is embarking, as Ministers are, on a major exercise in the reconstruction of the second Chamber, why leave it loose-ended like that? I do not want it, but if my hon. Friend is going in for that sort of exercise, why is it not written more specifically into the Bill so that we know how matters stand?

Mr. Rees: With respect to my hon. Friend, I will deal with that later. I am now dealing with the point raised yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne when he quoted the speech of the Lord Chancellor in another place. I am on that point and not on the question whether the precise number of peers who should be Ministers should be laid down in the Bill. My hon. Friend in quoting what the Lord Chancellor said was giving the matter more certainty than the speech of the Lord Chancellor merits on a second look. The Lord Chancellor said:
… with a reformed House there would be no reason why a Bill should start in one


House and not in the other …. One could provide that a Public Bill, after having its Second Reading in one House, would then perhaps have a Joint Committee Stage of both Houses …. Again I think we should consider the possibility … I suspect that the Private Bill procedure in both Houses really needs an overhaul …. Finally, there would be no reason why …."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 19th November, 1968; Vol. 297, c. 650–1.]
I submit that the speech was made in another place with the emphasis that these matters, whether of finance or anything else, would have to be considered by both Houses. There is no certainty in this. I can see that underlying the reform which is involved in the Bill is the reform of the procedures of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, but these were suggestions of what might happen as a result of the reforms that are made statutorily in the Bill.

Mr. Sheldon: My hon. Friend must be aware of my contention as to the difference between the prospectus offered to the House of Lords and that which was offered to the House of Commons. When this was discussed in the House of Commons there was no mention of increasing the power of the House of Lords in this way. Yet the speeches of the Lord Chancellor and of the Leader of the House of Lords in another place contain these high promises offered to the Members of the House of Lords, and what many people are offended by is the difference between the prospectus offered in the House of Commons and the prospectus offered in the other place.

Mr. Rees: In that respect, I refer my hon. Friend to Appendix II on which the speech of the Lord Chancellor was based, and that is contained in the White Paper which has been offered equally to this House and to another place. The remarks he offered to the Committee from the speech of the Lord Chancellor in the context of Appendix II referred to the paragraphs headed: Public Bills: General; Public Bills: Committee procedure; Public Bills: accelerated procedure; Subordinate legislation; Private Bills; Specialist Committees. The Lord Chancellor was not just putting a gloss on his interpretation of what might happen as a result of the statutory form which is laid down in the Bill, but was referring to Appendix II. He was not offering a new idea on his part to another

place and not to us. What he said is all taken from the White Paper which is now in front of me and which has been in front of the House for some time. It was not something new.

Mr. Powell: In that case, will the Under-Secretary of State explain why, since these prospects were so important and were embraced by the Government as a whole, no reference was made to them by an official speaker during the two-day debate in the House of Commons upon the White Paper? Why were they passed over in silence here even though they were buried in the Appendix?

10.15 a.m.

Mr. Rees: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman's remark about the prospects being buried in the Appendix, although someone outside might regard them as buried in the Appendix, no one who is considering the whole question can regard it in that sense. I cannot without reference turn to it, but I recall that the implication of Appendix II in the context of reform was raised at least by my hon. Friends on Second Reading. I surmise from that that the Amendment which we are considering and others like it follow up points raised on Second Reading. It is not just an idea which has occurred to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne in recent weeks.
My argument is that Appendix II is in the White Paper; it puts forward ideas of what might be done to improve the procedures of the House of Commons and House of Lords; it contains reformative ideas which would have to be considered by both Houses; and it is basic to the Bill. What underlies the Bill is a means of improving the procedures of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. This was not a sudden idea, a gloss put on the Bill by the Lord Chancellor in another place; it is part of the White Paper.

Mr. Michael Foot: If it is basic to the Bill, will my hon. Friend consider in the next stage of the Bill incorporating it in the Preamble?

Mr. Rees: That is an interesting point which no doubt will be considered, but, I should have thought not with any great chance of success.
While I accept that the number four is a cockshy and is not the world's best, the Amendment as drafted is silly. I cannot claim the omniscience on numbers that has sometimes arisen on both sides, but in this respect it is not a good Amendment. The principle underlying the Amendment is that the number of peers in the Government in another place should be laid down by Statute, and there are many other side effects.
In the 1961 issue of The Table, which is the Journal of the Society of Clerks at the Table in Commonwealth Parliaments, there is an interesting article by Mr. Punnett on Ministerial representation in the House of Lords since 1859. Table I gives the representation of the House of Lords in Governments from 1859 to 1962. It starts with the first Long Government of Lord Palmerston and ends with the Government of 1957 of Mr. Macmillan. It gives the number in the Cabinet, the number of peers in the Cabinet, the total number of posts and the number of posts held by peers. I accept that the House of Lords has changed in its composition, that the number of peers has changed and that the number of Ministers has changed since that time, but the number of peers in the Government became smaller over the years until the Government of 1951–55, when there was a sudden escalation of the number of Cabinet Ministers in the Government, for a variety of reasons.
From this, I deduce that it would be an error of approach to lay down precisely the number of Ministers who should be in another place. That is not something that ought to have statutory form. For philosophical reasons, over the years Tory Administrations had more Government peers than Labour Administrations. There are fewer peers as Ministers in another place now than in the previous Administration. There may be a number of reasons why Tory Administrations have more Ministers in the House of Lords, but I am attributing that not to ability but to philosophy. The Government believe that this is best left in a flexible form and not laid down in numerical form.

Mr. Iremonger: Surely the hon. Gentleman has totally misread the purpose of both the Clause and the

Amendment. The Clause does not limit the number of peers in the Government. It limits the number of peers in the Government who shall be exempt from the qualifications governing other peers.

Mr. Rees: I fully accept that. It is based on paragraph 45 of the White Paper, which says that, in order to preserve the freedom of the Prime Minister in appointing Ministers of his choice and to ensure that a Minister in the House of Lords would be a voting member of that House, Ministers would also be exempted both from the attendance requirement and from the restrictions on age. That is the intention of the Clause.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that acceptance of the Amendment would not inhibit the Prime Minister's choice of peers as members of his Government? It would only limit the number of such peers who, being Ministers, were exempted from the age and voting requirements.

Mr. Rees: What it would do is to create two types or grades of Ministers. The view of the Government is that that would be an error. If the right hon. Gentleman is arguing that in some future Administration Tory peers should be second grade peers in the sense in which we are talking now, that is an interesting point. But the view of the Government is that, based on the history of Ministerial responsibility and methods of approach, it should be done in the same way as it has been in the past. That is the purpose of the Clause as it stands.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Gentleman uses the phrase "second grade peers", is he aware that what he is now enunciating is the doctrine that Ministers will be first grade peers and that all other peers, including leaders of the Opposition, will be second grade peers? That is not exactly facilitating his argument. Incidentally, with respect to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), he is wrong, as he usually is on the rare occasions when he is here.

Mr. Lubbock: As the right hon. Gentleman has referred to me, perhaps I might point out to him that if he had been here yesterday evening he would have heard that the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Whip in another place are covered by paragraph (a) and


their salaries are payable under the provision for Ministers.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is evidence of my proposition——

The Chairman: Order. We cannot have an intervention on an intervention. Mr. Merlyn Rees.

Mr. Rees: Again, these are interesting points, and it is not for me to rush to defend the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). We engaged in these discussions late last night.
To return to the point at issue, the view of the Government is that there should not be any number laid down in the statute. We believe that it should be a flexible number, and over the years it has been flexible.
The other point is that any changes in procedure that arise in Appendix II are matters for discussion, that it would be inappropriate for them to be laid down in the Statute, and that Parliamentary reform in terms of procedure, including Private Bill procedure, which would set free this place to engage in far more important matters, would arise from it.
The view of the Government is that this Amendment is inappropriate and that it is not right to lay down the numbers. It is also my view and that of the Government that the Amendment as drawn is silly. However, I accept the principle behind it, and I have put my mind to that.

Mr. John Lee: Are we to understand from that that the Government intend to introduce an Amendment of their own on Report to improve the position?

Mr. Rees: No. My hon. Friend is a lawyer, and he is picking up a narrow point. I was saying that I thought that the Amendment as drawn was silly, and perhaps that was a little discourteous. I was conceding that my hon. Friend has every right to take the view that he does, and I quite see his argument, even though I do not accept it. However, clearly, he is more concerned with the principle than with numbers.
It is our view that the Amendment is inappropriate, whatever it is trying to say, and my recommendation to the Committee is that it should be negatived.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: The Committee is becoming more and more confused by the Ministerial speeches. The problem facing us, quite simply, is this. Because of the Preamble and the leaving of so much to the prerogative, because of the nature of the Bill which is more and more clearly demonstrated to be bad, and because of the sort of speech that we have just heard from the hon. Gentleman, where he seems to have misinterpreted the objects of the Clause and the Amendment and the effect of it, the Committee is being driven to make a new constitution for the House of Lords. That is why we are having to go through every line and point in the Bill and try to tie down any future Government in what they propose to do.
I regard this as thoroughly unsatisfactory, but, because of the vagueness, because of the misinterpretations which are possible and the abuses which could flow from the Bill, we have no alternative.
The point which becomes more and more clear as we proceed is that the two Front Benches, for a matter of what they believe to be administrative——

The Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has not yet addressed himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Fraser: I am coming to the point, Mr. Irving. As a matter of administrative convenience, they are prepared to destroy a part of the constitution.
The Amendment seeks to avoid the kind of abuses which could creep in with peers being exempted and raised above the level of their fellow peers in the other place. This is an essential point for this House to get written into the Bill.
I hope that the suggestions of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) will be considered seriously. Either this point about the membership of Ministerial and other privileged peers should be written into the Preamble on Report, or the number should be laid down. As the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said, we do not stand by this number of four, but we are determined that there shall be a number above which no Government may go in granting these special privileges by putting Ministers in another place above the law of the other place.
There is also the point that this could be abused as it stands. It might be that this House became unmanageable, as perhaps it is today, and it might be that the Government thought of transferring more Ministers to another place. It is not inconceivable. One could visualise conditions in which it might be that under the present Prime Minister the glorious days of Lord Palmerston returned with a mass of Ministers in the other place and this House reduced in importance because executive power and responsibility lay elsewhere. As matters stand, that is not an impossibility.
That is why we are anxious and determined to see that something in the nature of this control is firmly written into the Bill. We do not insist on the number being four, but, we are determined that the Government should lay before us on Report a suitable number which cannot be exceeded. If they do not, there is every possibility of this Bill, which hon. Members on all sides find more and more obnoxious, presenting grave dangers to thte liberties of this country.

10.30 a.m.

Mr. John Lee: Looking at this Clause as we have looked at every other Clause so far, we start by casually observing what seems to be a not particularly controversial or exceptional provision. It is when we begin to examine the Clause in detail that we realise just how ridiculous it is. One of the definitions of law which I most like is that it takes a magnifying glass to the edges of meaning. What we have been doing throughout the Bill—and I apprehend that we shall be doing the same thing in relation to many more Clauses—is to take a magnifying glass to the edges of meaning. We magnify the Clause, and we see how blurred and ambiguous it really is——

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is not addressing himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Lee: I said that by way of preface, Mr. Irving. In my view both the Clause and my hon. Friend's Amendment are incredible. This is an extraordinary Bill. I do not know whether the Minister has realised that it is creating a specially privileged class of Minister, unlimited in number, over and above the

number of Ministers that Parliament allows to exist at the moment.
For a long time it has been a constitutional convention—with the trifling exception of the Scottish Law Officers, and even that exception has not been a consistent one—that Members of the Government should be ordinary Members of either House. Persons who through the accidents of electoral misfortune are not Members of the House, or for some reason or other cannot be made or do not wish to be made Members of the other place in the ordinary course of creation, cannot be Ministers at all.
The Clause seeks to create a special category of Minister because the existing membership of the House of Lords is not deemed to contain enough Members of ministerial calibre. It creates an extra category of Minister—a category of peers not previously Members of the other place, from which Ministers may be made.
That, in itself, is not so exceptional, but then we see that the Clause seeks to vest in those peers special privileges, in the form of voting rights. If it were desirable—given the idea of limited membership of the other place—to create extra peers to provide Ministers there, there might be an arguable case for making those Ministers non-voting peers and for treating this as a wholly exceptional provision, not likely to be used very often and therefore not to be used in a way that will destroy the balance in another place.
The Under-Secretary does not seem to realise that if this provision is not limited in the way suggested by my hon. Friend, or in any other way, it will enable the Government of the day to destroy the whole idea of a voting balance in the other place. As I understand it, part of the rationale of the Bill is that there should be a fair distribution of political strength in the other place; indeed, the Bill has been sold to some of my hon. Friends only on the basis that the other place has previously always had an inbuilt Conservative majority and that henceforth this will not be the case; that there will not necessarily be a Labour majority and there will not necessarily be a Conservative majority. The balance will be held by the cross-bencher peers.
That is all very nice. It sounds most democratic and logical, until we examine


the membership of the cross benches in the other place and try to discover what on earth the cross-benchers stand for.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The whole concept is that cross-bencher peers should not stand for anything.

The Chairman: Order. This is not relevant to the Amendment.

Mr. Lee: If we allow the Clause to go through unamended, as the Under-Secretary has invited the Committee to do, it will be an open invitation to any Government faced with intractable opposition in the other place—Conservative as well as Labour—to manufacture extra Ministers and to vest in them the voting rights permitted by the Clause. What a wonderful arrangement! We have already had sufficient foretaste of the disagreeable attributes of patronage that the Bill provides. I do not know how many hon. Members realise that this Clause is an open invitation—indeed, an incentive—to create Ministers in the other place and to vest in them voting rights.
I turn now to some of my more detailed objections. I do not know how many times it has been said in relation to other matters, but it bears repetition, that if we are going to make a major constitutional departure of this kind—and the Clause by itself represents a major constitutional change—why should we seek to do so in advance of the Constitutional Commission? Why is the Constitutional Commission vested with powers to examine the desirability or otherwise of Ministers being in this House, or the other House, or in no House at all?
In parenthesis, I admit that there may be a case—although it has been only a rare exception in the past—for Ministers of the Crown to be in neither House. On the whole, that is a highly objectionable practice. It has not been indulged in very much since the Liberal Government of Asquith.

Mr. Lubbock: Frank Cousins.

Mr. Lee: The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) mentioned Frank Cousins. I remind him that Mr. Cousins was duly elected and came into this House. At any rate, this is a highly objectionable practice. This objectionable

provision has been surreptitiously inserted into a Clause which is ostensibly in one of the less important parts of the Bill.
The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) talked about there being more Ministers today. I believe that there are more today than there have ever been in any one Government. I may be wrong, and I shall probably be corrected if I am. I have heard that there are 107 Ministers of all kinds, from the Prime Minister down to the Third Lady-in-Waiting. One thing that one would have thought would be forthcoming from a radical Government is an organisation and methods exercise into the number of Ministers required. We have become very scientific-managerial conscious—if I may use that rather inelegant phrase. We bring the organisation-and-methods people into the B.B.C. and into industry. Some of my hon. Friends who charge themselves with assisting the Leader of the House in the task of reforming our procedures have suggested the introduction of such experts into this House. Why should not an evaluation be made of the number of Ministers we require?
If I am on firm ground, as I believe I am, in saying that this is urgently necessary, then in view of the number of proliferations and coalitions of ministerial responsibilities which have taken place in recent years, surely this should have been done before inserting a provision such as this in the Clause. It is an open invitation to a Government to create Ministers not previously in either House and to vest in them the extra voting rights.
For various reasons, which I shall give, I am not particularly enamoured of the figure of four mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). I think that I understand the purport of his Amendment rather more clearly than the Minister, because it seemed to me that three-quarters of the Minister's speech was directed to an argument which was never adduced. My hon. Friend says, "This is a bad Clause. The least we can do is to make it less bad by putting a ceiling on the number of peer Ministers of first creation." That is an admirable principle, although I think that the number suggested by my hon. Friend is wrong.


It should be none. I do not think that my hon. Friend merely brought a number out of his head, although if he did he would not be the first person to do that on this Bill. A lot of numbers have been brought out of people's heads and they have gone on to prove what they started in the first place. That seems to be the general reasoning in all the numerical calculations which have been put before us.
Although I think that my hon. Friend's Amendment falls a long way short of perfection, there is another reason why, if he is minded to press it to a Division, I shall be minded to support him. As long as a provision of this kind is contained in this sort of Bill, there will be an incentive for Prime Ministers to create peers in the normal course of events—the normal replacement quota, so to speak—who are of non-Ministerial calibre. The Prime Minister will reason, "I do not need to create peers in the ordinary course of creation who are fit to be Ministers because I know that under Clause 5 I can always jack up the voting in the other place and have Ministers in the other place of the correct calibre recruited from outside the normal voting quota and normal working membership of that Chamber."
One of the objects of the Bill is to improve the quality of the other place. Therefore, why do the Government seek to put in the Bill a provision which, if it is acted on, as I suspect it will be, most certainly will have the opposite effect? Human nature being what it is, the Government will be itching to use any pretext to add to their political strength in the other place whenever difficulties are caused by the Opposition, cross benchers or other peers perhaps on their own side who wish to vote them down. Nobody suggests that all those peers created in a reconstituted second Chamber should be of Ministerial calibre. Certainly they are not now.
10.45 a.m.
Many of the complaints about earlier provisions in the Bill and the ludicrous provisions about chalking up a certain number of attendances have been directed to the fact that many experts who will be infrequent attenders will be debarred from effective membership. Therefore, nobody suggests that the Bill should be

directed entirely to the creation of peers of ministerial calibre. Nevertheless, to put in a provision, as this Clause does, which will have the effect of being a disincentive to the creation of peers of ministerial calibre in the normal course of events is most extraordinary.
We still demand an explanation why this provision is in the Bill. It is yet another attempt at surreptitious patronage. It has other disturbing implications. In so far as there is another place of the kind which is in existence or of the kind envisaged in the Bill, I should have thought that the aim of a Labour Government would be to reduce to a minimum the number of Ministers in another place. There is a strong case for a small piece of enabling legislation to remove the statutory requirement that there shall be so many Ministers in another place in order that the Government may be properly constituted. I find it extraordinary that a Labour Government should introduce a Bill containing a Clause of this kind whose ultimate effect undoubtedly will be to increase the number of Ministers in the non-democratic Chamber. Therefore, I invite my hon. Friends to divide the Committee on the Amendment.

Mr. Lubbock: I did not propose to intervene in the debate, and I have no intention of delaying the proceedings, but I have been provoked into doing so by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), who, with exceptional arrogance and offensiveness even for him, accused me of having made a mistake when I said that the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Chief Whip in another place were covered by the Clause because they are dealt with in the Ministerial Salaries Consolidation Act, 1965.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has read the White Paper, but obviously he has not read the Act referred to in the Clause. Under Section 4(1)(b) of the 1965 Act, the Leader of the Opposition in another place is paid a salary of £2,000 and the Chief Opposition Whip in another place is paid a salary of £1,500. I wonder whether those noble Lords are worth the money they are paid.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting away from the Amendment.

Mr. Lubbock: I am following up the point made by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) last evening.

The Chairman: Order. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman. I must rule as I understand the Standing Orders.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Member for Ormskirk read out the names of all the Ministers who, he said, were covered by the Act. The Minister reminded him that the two noble Lords to whom I have referred had been left out of his calculations. Although the hon. Gentleman was able to give the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who is the Leader of the Opposition in another place, he could not remember the name of the Chief Opposition Whip, who is paid——

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman wondered whether the noble Lords were value for money. I must rule him out of order.

Mr. Lubbock: I am on another point.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk, who thought it important that the Committee should know the names of these noble Lords in coming to a decision on the Amendment, was unable to tell us the name of the Opposition Chief Whip in another place. I have not the faintest idea who this noble Lord is, and I wish that one of the Tories present this morning would enlighten me. I wonder whether they know the name of this noble Lord.

The Chairman: Order. The identity of the noble Lord is irrelevant to the Amendment.

Mr. Lubbock: Then why was the hon. Member for Ormskirk allowed to read out that list?

The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will not reflect on the decision of the Chair at any time.

Mr. Lubbock: Of course I would not reflect on the Chair.

Mr. Iremonger: On a point of order. It is important that we know the identity of this noble Lord.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Chairman heard my Ruling.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The mistake which the hon. Member for Orpington

(Mr. Lubbock) is making—this is why I suggested earlier that he was wrong—is that subsection (1)(a) refers to
any office in respect of which salary is payable under the Ministerial Salaries Consolidation Act 1965".
Although the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that Section 4 of that Act refers to payments made to this gentleman, it is significant that there is no reference there to an office. There is an earlier reference—for example, in Section 2—to offices. It is offices which are referred to in the Schedule. On the other hand—this is where the Minister was wrong—Section 4 of the 1965 Act neither creates an office nor attaches a salary to an office. It attaches the salary to individuals and, therefore, is outside the Bill, which refers to "an office".

The Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is making a very long intervention.

Mr. Lubbock: I have taken the point made by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order. I always accept your guidance, of course, Mr. Irving, but it will be within your recollection that the hon. Gentleman challenged my accuracy on a point. He was perfectly right to do so, because I think it is a difficult point, and he was courteous enough to give way. I hope that your Ruling does not indicate that in those circumstances the Member challenged is not permitted to explain a not terribly simple argument.

The Chairman: Order. I thought that I was helping the right hon. Gentleman by giving him considerable latitude already.

Mr. Lubbock: I have taken the right hon. Gentleman's point and I will reply to it. The question whether the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Opposition Whip in another place are office holders within the meaning of subsection (1,a) is a matter for discussion. The right hon. Gentleman may have certain views on this, which I hope he will be able to give to the Committee. Yesterday the Under-Secretary said that these two noble Lords were included in the provisions of the Bill. With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, who


I know thinks he is always right, and who is extremely proud of his legal knowledge——

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No.

Mr. Lubbock: —or who gives the impression that he is whenever he speaks in the House of Commons——

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No.

Mr. Lubbock: The right hon. Gentleman thinks he is always right. I say, with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that the Minister at the Home Office has access to considerable legal advice of his own. Therefore, if it comes to a dispute between the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister, who has the whole of the resources of his Department at his disposal, I know who I prefer to accept.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Deal with the argument.

Mr. Lubbock: I said that it is a matter for discussion. The right hon. Gentleman says that these two gentlemen are not within the provisions of this paragraph. The Minister said that they are. I prefer to accept the opinion of the Minister and to say that the right hon. Gentleman must be wrong.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I speak only with second-hand omniscience, because I am not a lawyer. I took advice. All I can offer the hon. Gentleman is that the legal advice I was very firmly given was directly contrary to the advice which the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) offered a few moments ago. I offered last evening the advice I was given. I believe that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) is building his argument on the point I made, on which I took legal advice.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: rose—

Mr. Lubbock: The Under-Secretary was making an intervention in my speech, not in a speech of the right hon. Gentleman. If the right hon. Gentleman has anything to say, perhaps he will seek to catch the eye of the Chair later.
What the Minister has said in my view disposes of the matter. The Minister has taken the advice of his Department.

The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames is wrong. That was the main reason for my wanting to speak.
There is another point which is worth drawing to the attention of the Committee, particularly after the contribution of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee). Section 2 of the Ministerial Salaries Consolidation Act, 1965, places numerical limits on the number of Ministers of particular kinds who may be created at any time. For instance:
The number of persons to whom salaries may be paid at any time as holders of the office of Secretary of State shall not exceed nine.
Later on, numbers are stipulated for Ministers of State, Treasury Secretaries, Junior Lords of the Treasury, Assistant Government Whips, Lords in Waiting, and Parliamentary Secretaries.
If there is an overall maximum of the number of Ministers in each of these categories, by implication there are subsidiary limits on the number of these Ministers who serve in another place. Hon. Members opposite who have been supporting the Amendment will agree that there are practical lower limits below which one could not go on the number of Ministers serving in the House of Commons. There must be Ministers who are capable of answering Questions in all the Departments, replying to debates, and handling Bills in Standing Committees. If these are subtracted from the total numbers set out in Section 2 of the 1965 Act, one arrives at a maximum beyond which one could not in practice go in another place.
In any case, do hon. Members opposite seriously think that a Labour Government would increase the number of Ministers in another place? Probably what they have in mind is the danger that if the Tories return to office there will be a vast increase in the number of noble Lords, as there was from 1951 to 1955. However, for practical reasons which I have given, if by some unfortunate mischance a Tory Government were to return, this could not happen, because there must still be Ministers to do the work in Standing Committees of the House of Commons; there must still be Ministers on the Front Bench here to answer Questions, and so on. The Tories would be bound by the limits set out in Section 2, unless they were to alter them.
In the light of this consideration I believe that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has put up a bogey. I hope that on reflection he will decide that we can move on to more important matters.

Mr. Heffer: Presumably the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) is overlooking the fact that Acts are sometimes amended. A simple way of overcoming the limitation on the numbers imposed by the 1965 Act would be by making a minor amendment to that Act. Then the number could become limitless or a further limitation could be imposed.
Accepting that the White Paper and the Bill set out the new constitution of the House of Lords, there will have to be an extension of the numbers of Ministers so that there will be sufficient Ministers in the other place to enable it to operate with its increased power and authority. So, although I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making, I think that this practical difficulty could be easily overcome.
The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that a Labour Government would not increase the number of Ministers in the Lords, deplorable as I find such an exercise, flies in the face of the experience of the last two or three years. There was an argument last night about the number of Ministers in the other place. It has risen by only one or two, but it has nevertheless risen. This disposes of the hon. Gentleman's point that a Labour Government would not in any circumstances increase the number of Ministers in the Lords.

11.0 a.m.

Mr. Rees: Perhaps I might give a little information. Until relatively recently the number was lower than it had been for a good many years, and it is still smaller than it has been for many years. I accept the point that it has gone up or down by one, but in terms of overall numbers it is considerably less than under previous Tory Administrations.

Mr. Heffer: I am not denying this. It is right that the greatest fear is that, in the event of tie Conservatives taking over, there could be an enormous increase in the numbers of Ministers in the other place. Any other Government could do the same—if there were to be a Liberal Government for example.

Mr. Lubbock: No.

Mr. Heffer: I am glad to hear the assurance that this is not likely to happen under the Liberals.
It is clear that the section in the 1965 Act to which reference has been made does not apply only to Ministers of the Crown. In that sense it might be said that Amendment does not cover the point, but I think that it does.
The Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Whip in the other place are both beneficiaries under the Act. The hon. Member for Orpington gave the figures. The Leader of the Opposition in the other place gets £2,000 a year. His name, for the benefit of those who do not know it, is Lord Carrington. The Chief Opposition Whip in the other place gets £1,500. There seems to be some mystery about the name of that noble Lord. I understand that his name is Lord St. Aldwyn. I hope that this mystery is now cleared up for the benefit of members of the Committee.

Mr. Lubbock: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it remarkable that none of the Tories could tell us his name and that it had to be given by an hon. Member from the other side of the Committee?

Mr. Heffer: Perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite do know his name but did not wish to reveal it, for reasons unknown to myself.

Mr. Iremonger: This is most interesting information about the identity of the noble Lord. But what really affects us in considering the Amendment is the age of the noble Lord. If the noble Lord was over 72 at the last possible date for dissolution of this Parliament, he would be a candidate for exemption under the Clause for the new House if the Labour Party formed a Government.

Mr. Rees: I have had a quick check made. If it is the correct person, he was born on 9th October, 1912.

Mr. Heffer: There is no doubt that as we go on the amount of information that the Committee gains is absolutely incredible. If nothing else, it has at least brought out this vital information. I am sure it is of great importance.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is a vital statistic.

Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has said that he is not tied to the figure of four in the Amendment. I am not absolutely tied to that figure, but I think that it has a significance, which I will endeavour to explain. Excluding the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Opposition Whip in the other place, and speaking in terms of four Ministers of the Government, irrespective of which party is in government, it would come down to something like this. One of my hon. Friends says that it should not be any, but I think that is going a little too far. I have considered the matter in concrete terms and this is what I have come up with.
First, the Lord Chancellor. We must have a Lord Chancellor—anyway, at present we must have a Lord Chancellor—so it seems perfectly logical and sensible that the Lord Chancellor should be a member of the Cabinet.

Mr. Powell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Lord Chancellor does not need to be a member of the House of Lords, and often has not been?

Mr. Heffer: I accept that this is so, but we are looking at it in the context of the present situation, and for some time the Lord Chancellor has been a member of the House of Lords. It seems to me that he is a good candidate for being one of the four Ministers and a member of the Cabinet.
Second, I think that the Leader of the House of Lords should be included; third, the senior Government Whip, and, fourth, the junior Government Whip.
Those are the four candidates who I feel should be included. That is why we have been exceedingly generous in the Amendment. We do not go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) who wants to eliminate the whole lot. We suggest that there is a good case for four Ministers in the other place.

Mr. Iremonger: The Amendment is concerned only to limit the number of Ministers who were over the age of 72 at the dissolution of the last Parliament or were otherwise ineligible. There could be any number of eligible Ministers under the Amendment and under the Clause.

Mr. Heffer: There could be other Ministers, I accept. But, from our point of view, we argue against any other Ministers in the other place.

An Hon. Member: Not even the old ones?

Mr. Heffer: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like the old ones.
I do not like the position where a number of Ministers in the other place, no matter how good they are, never have to get up in this place where the elected representatives of the people can subject them to questions and discussion in debate. I see nothing wrong with the principle of having the majority of our Ministers subject to this House and, in turn, subject to the electorate. If they are hopelessly wrong or incompetent at the end of their term in the House of Commons the electorate can then give them their answer. I feel that this is of great importance.

Mr. Lubbock: While accepting that Ministers ought to be members of this House so that they can be called to answer questions by hon. Members, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman thinks there is a legitimate case for having at least Parliamentary Secretaries in the other place also covered by the Clause?

Mr. Heffer: I was coming on to this point. If we had an elected second Chamber which was equally responsible to the electorate, there is a very good argument for an equal distribution, or a greater distribution, of Ministers in the elected democratic second Chamber. But we are not talking about an elected second Chamber.
I have heard it said here many times that if we had an elected second Chamber it would inevitably have equal powers with this Chamber. That is why everyone puts his hand on his heart in this Chamber and says that under no circumstances do we ever want an elected second Chamber. But what is happening now? If the Clause is carried un-amended the powers of the second Chamber will be almost equal to ours, and there is no democracy attached to it.
I say seriously to those who until now have thought that we have been rather silly in our opposition to the Bill that every hon. Member should bear this point


in mind. It is fundamental, and they should ask themselves why we are fighting the Bill as we are.
The White Paper has a great deal of significance for the Clause, and Appendix II bears quoting again. If the parts of the White Paper embodied in the Bill are carried, the relationship between the two Houses will be changed. There will be more Ministers in the House of Lords. Appendix II says:
2. A substantial contribution towards improving the legislative process could be obtained by spreading the introduction of public bills more evenly over the session and dividing it more equally between the two Houses. More bills would therefore be introduced in the House of Lords. … and it might be necessary, in order to obtain full advantage from an improved flow of legislation from one House to the other, to increase the number of Cabinet and other Ministers in the House of Lords. At present there are in the House only two Cabinet Ministers and 13 other Ministers (including the Whips), …
The operative word is "only". The Government are saying that there are not enough. They are saying that they want to give the Lords more powers, that they want to introduce Bills in another place and to give their lordships more rights, and that, therefore, more Ministers are needed there.
The Appendix also says:
3. If the Lords are to play a more useful part in the legislative process it might be desirable to adopt some form of public bill committee procedure, which need not necessarily be modelled on the procedure for the Commons' standing committees. Other aspects of public bill procedure in the House of Lords might also be considered: for example, whether or not it is desirable to follow the example of the House of Commons in the use of second reading committees.

Mr. Lubbock: Hear, hear.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman is rather like a sheep going to the cliff, bleating away and then finding himself dead when he falls over. That is what will happen if we accept the Clause as it stands.
Paragraph 4 of the Appendix says:
A convention might be established that certain classes of Bills should start in one House and then receive detailed examination by a joint committee. … A further possibility would be to commit to a joint committee private members' bills on controversial social subjects …
I shall not argue about that suggestion, because it is not quite so important.
If these proposals are to work there will have to be an increase in the number of Ministers in the other place. If one is to initiate new Bills there and to have joint committees, with Bills coming through from the other place, there must be Ministers who have been in charge from the beginning.

Mr. Lubbock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for permitting me to intervene again. What I said "Hear, hear" to was the idea of a Second Reading Committee in the other place. If Second Readings could be taken off the floor of the House of Lords fewer Ministers would be needed there, not more.

Mr. Heffer: I do not see that that follows. Even in a Second Reading Committee Ministers are needed to guide the Bill through. That has always been the experience in this House.

Mr. Powell: The point of a Second Reading Committee is that at the same time as it is sitting other business can be transacted on the Floor of the House. Therefore, one needs a double team of Ministers to get any benefit out of the innovation.

[Mr. HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair]

11.15 a.m.

Mr. Heffer: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who has underlined my point that the proposal would mean an extension of the number of Ministers.
My point becomes really significant in the light of the speech on House of Lords reform by the Lord Chancellor on 19th November, 1968, in the other place. He said:
I hope that your Lordships' reading has extended to Appendix II. One of the great advantages of this reform will be that it will then enable all of us to sit down in circumstances in which we are no longer battling with another place, to consider together the reform of Parliament; and, as is pointed out in Appendix II, on Public Bills, with a reformed House there would be no reason why a Bill should start in one House and not in the other. It would need the other place to give way on some of their financial privileges, but I see no reason to anticipate that they would not do that if it were for the good of Parliament.
I want to emphasise the point about financial privileges. If that is not giving extra power to the other place, I do not know what is. The answer is to restrict the number of Ministers there, so that


the other place could not initiate the types of Bills suggested by the Lord Chancellor. He also said:
… I believe, too, that with these reforms the influence of your Lordships' House on the country will be greater than it is to-day."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 19th Nov., 1968; Vol. 297, c. 650–2.]
Those were the last words uttered by the Lord Chancellor in opening that debate. That was what was being commended to their Lordships and being sold to them. I ask hon. Members not to be misled.
Mr. F. Humblet, Secretary-General of the Belgian Senate, in a report on behalf of the Association of Secretaries General of Parliaments on bicameral Parliaments, said the following, which is opposite to the Clause and Amendment:
While in a democratic age it might appear surprising that a House with such an overwhelming hereditary element has survived in its present form, it should be remembered that the legislative powers of the Lords vis-á-vis the Commons have been progressively reduced by the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949; and the Lords have no rights in relation to financial legislation.
But under the terms——

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The Amendment deals not with the rights of another place but with whether we should have four or more Ministers there. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would relate his remarks more to the Amendment.

Mr. Heffer: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Gourlay. I am doing my best to point out that the whole question of the number of Ministers related to the powers of the other place. That is the burden of my argument. The quotation goes on:
But while the aristocratic Chamber seems to be disappearing it is worth noting that the method of appointing Members of the Upper House is no more democratic in several States. It seems that some Constitutions have deliberately attempted to temper the democratic character of the Lower House by introducing more conservative elements into the Upper House.
We should bear statements of that kind in mind. It underlines the fundamental point I am making. If there is not a limitation on the number of Ministers, we shall see a great mushrooming of various joint committees. It is true that we have Joint Committees now, but they

are strictly limited. Under this proposition, there would also be Standing Committees to deal with Bills and so forth. We cannot accept such a proposition.
While it is true that there is a limitation on the number of Ministers at present, there could still be an expansion. I believe that the powers which this Clause would give to any Prime Minister are too much for us to accept. The powers both of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition would be extended in relation to nomination to the other place. We have heard about there being first and second grades of Minister. There would be six grades of peer under this Bill. But in addition to all those peers who are to have added powers, we could have enormous numbers of Ministers in the other place, all in the gift of the Prime Minister of the day. I do not think that we should or can accept this. The Amendment is designed to limit the number of Ministers in the other place for the sake of the efficiency and power of House of Commons and to ensure that such power is not given into the hands of the Prime Minister.
It is no use arguing that the Clause would not radically change the situation. First, the second Chamber would have increased powers; second, the number of peers with voting rights would be much smaller and therefore those with voting rights would have that much greater power; third, the ratio of Ministers, even accepting the number of Ministers at present in another place, would be that much greater than at present. All this adds up to extra power and influence of the other place.
We are asked, therefore, to accept a fundamental and important change in the relationship between the two Houses. In essence, this would be a weakening of the democratic process precisely because there would be nominated and not elected representatives. I do not like the other place as it is, but I prefer it as it is to this proposition. I hope that the Committee will support the Amendment.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. John McCann (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Hon. Members: No.

The Deputy Chairman: The Question is—

Mr. Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Gourlay. I thought I heard you—but I must have been mistaken—putting the Question, That the Question be now put. In that case, you cannot be aware that the Minister intervened briefly earlier in the debate for the assistance of the Committee and that many important points have since then been put to which the Committee is entitled to a reply, even at this stage. I am sure that there must have been some mistake.

The Deputy Chairman: I can deal with that point of order by saying that the Chair has taken all the circumstances mentioned by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) into account.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Mr. John Lee: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Gourlay. I understood the Minister to say that he would not be seeking leave of the Committee because he did not need leave

of the Committee. The inference was surely that he would reply to the debate. Is not your acceptance of the Motion for the Closure outwith your powers, therefore?

The Deputy Chairman: No. That point is a matter not for the Chair but for the Minister.

11.30 a.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Gourlay. I could not hear the Ruling that you gave to the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee). Would you repeat it?

The Deputy Chairman: I told the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) that the point he raised was a matter not for the Chair but for the Minister.

The Tellers being called to the Table, Mr. MCCANN reported that one of the Tellers had voted in the No Lobby before acting as Teller.

Whereupon The CHAIRMAN directed the Committee to proceed again to a Division:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 123, Noes 50.

Division No. 146.]
AYES
[11.35 a.m.


Anderson, Donald
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Loughlin, Charles


Archer, Peter
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lubbock, Eric


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Fernyhough, E.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ford, Ben
McBride, Neil


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Forrester, John
McCann, John


Bishop, E. S.
Freeson, Reginald
MacColl, James


Blackburn, F.
Garrett, W. E.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Boyden, James
Gregory, Arnold
Maclennan, Robert


Bradley, Tom
Grey, Charles (Durham)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hannan, William
Manuel, Archie


Buchan, Norman
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Millan, Bruce


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Haseldine, Norman
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Cant, R. B.
Hazell, Bert
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Carmichael, Neil
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Coe, Denis
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Concannon, J. D.
Hoy, James
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oakes, Gordon


Dalyell, Tam




Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hunter, Adam
O'Malley, Brian


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)




Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Dempsey, James
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Price, William (Rugby)


Doig, Peter
Judd, Frank
Probert, Arthur


Dunnett, Jack
Kelley, Richard
Rees, Merlyn


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lawson, George
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Eadie, Alex
Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Ellis, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Ensor, David
Lomas, Kenneth
Rowlands, E.




Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Urwin, T. W.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Silverman, Julius
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Small, William
Watkins, David (Consett)
Woof, Robert


Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Weitzman, David



Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Whitlock, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Taverne, Dick
Wilkins, W. A.
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Tinn, James
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Royle, Anthony


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Heffer, Eric S.
Ryan, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Iremonger, T. L.
Sheldon, Robert


Booth, Albert
Jopling, Michael
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Brewis, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Temple, John M.


Carlisle, Mark
Lee, John (Reading)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Clegg, Walter
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Cordle, John
Marten, Neil
Ward, Dame Irene


Corfield, F. V.
Monro, Hector
Weatherill, Bernard


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wiggin, J.


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Farr, John
Orme, Stanley
Woodnutt, Mark


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Paget, R. T.
Younger, Hn. George


Foster, Sir John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch



Goodhew, Victor
Pym, Francis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gower, Raymond
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Mr. Ronald Bell and


Grant, Anthony
Ridsdale, Julian
Mr. Russell Kerr.

Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 45, Noes 127.

Division No. 147.]
AYES
[11.44 a.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Iremonger, T. L.
Ridsdale, Julian


Biggs-Davison, John
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Sheldon, Robert


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Jopling, Michael
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Booth, Albert
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Lee, John (Reading)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Brewis, John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Clegg, Walter
Marten, Neil
Ward, Dame Irene


Corfield, F. V.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Wiggin, J.


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Monro, Hector
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Farr, John
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Woodnutt, Mark


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Orme, Stanley
Wright, Esmond


Foster, Sir John
Paget, R. T.
Younger, Hn. George


Goodhew, Victor
Park, Trevor



Gower, Raymond
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. Ronald Bell and


Heffer, Eric S.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Mr. Russell Kerr.


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)






NOES


Anderson, Donald
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Archer, Peter
Dempsey, James
Haseldine, Norman


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Doig, Peter
Hazell, Bert


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dunnett, Jack
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Bishop, E. S.
Eadie, Alex
Hoy, James


Blackburn, F.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Boyden, James
Ellis, John
Hunter, Adam


Bradley, Tom
Ennals, David
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Ensor, David
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Buchan, Norman
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Ford, Ben
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Cant, R. B.
Forrester, John
Judd, Frank


Carmichael, Neil
Freeson, Reginald
Kelley, Richard


Coe, Denis
Garrett, W. E.
Lawson, George


Concannon, J. D.
Gregory, Arnold
Leadbitter, Ted


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Dalyell, Tam
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Lomas, Kenneth


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Loughlin, Charles


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Hamling, William
Lubbock, Eric


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hannan, William
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McBride, Neil




McCann, John
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


MacColl, James
Pentland, Norman
Tinn, James


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Urwin, T. W.


Maclennan, Robert
Price, William (Rugby)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


McMilan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Probert, Arthur
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Rees, Merlyn
Watkins, David (Consett)


MacPherson, Malcolm
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Weitzman, David


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Whitlock, William


Manuel, Archie
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Wilkins, W. A.


Millan, Bruce
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Rowlands, E.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Ryan, John
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Woof, Robert


Oakes, Gordon
Silverman, Julius



O'Malley, Brian
Small, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Taverne, Dick

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): We now come to Amendment No. 31—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order. I would be grateful if you could help the Committee, Mr. Gourlay, in the suggestion which has now arisen. It will be within your recollection, since you were in the Chair at the time, that during the debate which has just been terminated the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department intervened fairly early this morning and that after his speech several speeches were made which raised questions. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) and I raised from different angles a point on the construction of the Bill and of the Amendment which it was understood that the Minister would answer. I would be out of order were I to comment on the circumstances in which the debate was terminated, but I seek your guidance on whether, on the specific point on the construction of the Bill in relation to that Amendment, on which I had my friendly difference of view with the hon. Member for Orpington, and on the other points raised, it would be in order, to make up for the omission, for the Minister to reply during the debate on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. I would be grateful if you could reassure us on this point.

The Deputy Chairman: It is not a matter for the Chair to give a specific assurance on what may be hypothetically possible. I think that we should wait until we come to the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I understand that but, with respect, what I was seeking was guidance on whether you would rule out of order an attempt by the Minister

on that Motion to reply to the points raised on the Amendment which we have just been debating.

The Deputy Chairman: I think the Committee had better wait for the guidance of the Chair at the time of the debate on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order. Might I suggest the possibility of a different way in which the Committee might proceed? May I ask for your consideration as to whether I would be given the opportunity to move to report Progress and ask leave to sit again on these grounds; first,——

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to ask leave to report Progress, but I am afraid I am unable to accept the Motion at this point.

Mr. Foot: May I submit to you, Mr. Gourlay, the reasons why you might be prepared to consider it? I will do so briefly. It has been the common practice when an hon. Member rises to suggest that such a Motion might be considered that he should be able to mention briefly the points to which he wishes to refer, although I agree that the points cannot be made extensively. The points to which I refer are two. First, many of us believe that the last debate was truncated, particularly in the example which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, and those of us on this side of the Committee who have been here throughout the whole of the debate and wish to participate believed that we would have a further period of discussion and that that matter could be discussed on the Motion to report Progress.
Secondly, an entirely novel situation has arisen, in that a Teller voted in the


last Division, and if on subsequent Divisions Tellers were to use the same method it would mean that the procedure of the Committee could be entirely blocked. If you would quote precedents, Mr. Gourlay, I would be glad to hear them, but, as far as I know, this is an unprecedented situation, and I therefore suggest that the best and most orderly way for the Committee to deal with these two questions is that you should accept the Motion, particularly as we have made some progress since the Session started at approximately 3.30 yesterday afternoon.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I am unable to accept the hon. Gentleman's submission. Both points have already been dealt with.

Mr. Powell: Mr. Gourlay, it will be within your recollection that at a recent stage of our proceedings the question of the range of application of Clause 5 and the point on interpretation arose which the Minister was unable to clear up because discussion occurred after his intervention. In these circumstances, Mr. Gourlay, I submit that the Committee is in great difficulty in proceeding to consider a Clause without knowledge of its application, and that we should have the means in our power of securing from the Government a ruling and an interpretation which will enable us to know to what the Amendments that we are discussing relate. We are in doubt as to the application and the meaning of the terms of the Clause which govern all the Aemndments which are to be considered. I submit that to you, Mr. Gourlay, in connection with the points which have been made by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot).

Mr. Paget: On a point of order. Surely, the opportunity to discuss the points made by my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman will be when we come to the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Chairman: I cannot give hypothetical Rulings because it depends on the occupant of the Chair when the debate on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, takes place. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is in some difficulty. On the other hand, the point which he has raised is not a

matter for the Chair at this stage. I would suggest that we proceed to discuss Amendment No. 31 together with Amendment No. 236, and perhaps during the debate some information may be elicited.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order. It is reported in HANSARD that yesterday during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) I made an interjection, as follows:
Perhaps they are suffering from a collective pressure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st April, 1969; Vol. 781, c. 287.]
What I said was this:
Perhaps they are suffering from a collective mindlessness.
This is not quite the same thing. I was referring to the absent Members of the Opposition Front Bench. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Gourlay, on how this erroneous impression in HANSARD can be corrected?

12 noon.

The Deputy Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for calling attention to this mistake in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Perhaps he will take it up with the appropriate authorities, and the Chair will do the same.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order, Mr. Gourlay. You said just now that you hoped that the Committee would proceed with the Amendment which you were about to call, and you added the comment that the point which I have raised might be elicited in the course of that debate. This is not hypothetical, nor is it a point for any other occupant of the Chair. It refers to this moment and the present distinguished occupant of the Chair. Am I to understand that I should be in order in raising that matter in the forthcoming debate and that the Minister would be in order in responding? That is what I understood your observation to indicate. It would be a great pity if there were any misunderstanding about this, and perhaps you would assist the Committee on it.

The Deputy Chairman: If we proceed with the debate, the occupant of the Chair at the time will be in a position to decide whether the right hon. Gentleman is in order during the course of the discussion.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Do I understand that to mean that you are expressing only a hypothetical possibility that it might be elicited and not, as I understood, giving an indication in broad terms that this will be permitted? It makes a difference.

The Deputy Chairman: That depends on how the right hon. Gentleman relates his remarks to the Amendment at the time.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Gourlay. The point that my right hon. Friend referred to was the question canvassed in the debate on the last Amendment of whether the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Whip in the House of Lords were to be included in the number of four which figures in the last Amendment. What troubles me about your Ruling, however tentatively given, is that the Amendment which we are about to consider, when it is moved, deals with high judicial offices within the meaning of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act. One would hesitate to describe the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Whip in the other place as holders of high judicial offices, and I ventured to wonder whether it would be appropriate to continue the truncated debate which we had on the last Amendment to carry through to fruition the arguments which we then deployed.

The Deputy Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman's point is not a matter for the Chair. Perhaps we can proceed with the Amendment. Mr. Lee.

Mr. John Lee: I beg to move—

Mr. Powell: On a point of order. Mr. Gourlay. Might I raise with you a point which arises out of the recent Divisions which have taken place in this Committee? My point refers to the first of those Divisions, which was abortive, though not to the grounds on which it was declared by you to be abortive. I understand that an hon. Member entered the voting Lobby by the exit door at a time when the other doors leading into the Lobby had already been locked on your orders—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Although the Division in question was declared by you to be invalid on other grounds, I apprehend that it would be right for the Committee to receive your guidance

on whether such an action is in accordance with the rules of order for future cases.

The Deputy Chairman: I appreciate the point which the right hon. Gentleman raises, but, as he has indicated, the Division was disqualified on other grounds. I think that we might leave it at that.

Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order. I am not arguing as to the validity of that Division which, as I said, was abortive. Nevertheless, it is a matter of importance. I apprehend that it is the duty of an hon. Member to raise and have resolved for the guidance of hon. Members on future occasions whether an action such as I understand occurred on that occasion is proper or improper. I would submit that it is wholly right that this point should be put to you at the earliest opportunity so that it may be resolved, irrespective of whether or not that Division was abortive.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Gourlay. I rise because the same thing occurred in the Committee last night when I was a Teller and an hon. Member entered the exit doors after the main doors had been locked. On that occasion, the two Tellers of whom I was one declined to count the hon. Member's vote. I hope that we were right in doing that. My recollection is that, when this has arisen in the past, Mr. Speaker has ruled that an hon. Member may enter the exit door and be counted provided that the main doors have not been locked on the order of the Chair. Since it has happened twice within 24 hours, perhaps we should have a Ruling on it, because it seems to be becoming a habit in the Committee. I suggest that when the main doors are locked, a different situation arises, that we were right to refuse to count the hon. Member's vote yesterday, and that it would be right to do so in future.

The Deputy Chairman: I think that most hon. Members know that it is wrong to enter the Lobby after the main doors have been locked. However, the Division in question has already been declared abortive. It would have been in order for the Chair to have ruled on the point which the right hon. Member


for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has raised if he had raised it at the time, but some time has elapsed since then.

Mr. John Farr: Further to that point of order, Mr. Gourlay. As soon as you declared the Division to be invalidated and called a new Division, a number of hon. Members immediately proceeded to their appropriate voting Lobbies. I have a suspicion that, while I was absent and voting for the second time, you may have said something from the Chair as to the reasons why you had declared the first Division to be abortive. As you may have done that, might I ask you to repeat it for the benefit of those of us who were not in the Chamber? On the other hand, if you have not declared officially why the first Division was abortive, may I ask you to give your reasons now?

The Deputy Chairman: The whereabouts of hon. Members when a decision is given is not the responsibility of the Chair. The matter has already been decided. I do not think that we can go back on it at this stage.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Further to that point of order, Mr. Gourlay. Did you say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) that it was impossible to investigate his allegation because some time has elapsed between the circumstances which he adduced and his raising the matter with you? If an impropriety has been committed in a Division, surely it is necessary to investigate what happened. Hon. Members who may have committed some impropriety should be discouraged from doing so again. If no action is taken, the same circumstances may arise in the future. Will you, therefore, institute an investigation into the exact circumstances of my right hon. Friend's allegation, and perhaps report to the Committee and give a considered Ruling upon your findings?

The Deputy Chairman: The Division had already been declared void, so the remarks of the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) make no difference to the point which has been raised.

Mr. Farr: Further to that point of order, Mr. Gourlay. Are we to take it,

therefore, that the Chair declines to state the reasons why the Division was invalidated? It may be of interest to you to know that it is being said already, in the absence of a clear declaration from the Chair, that it was a Government Minister who went through the Lobby, voted, and thereupon took upon himself the duty of acting as a Teller. I am sure that that is an inaccurate and possibly wild and nonsensical rumour. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Leader of the House."] [Laughter.] This is terribly serious. It is an example of what can occur when no authoritative statement is made available to both sides of the Committee by the Chair.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The Chair made a completely authoritative statement at that point. I am sure that the hon. Member will be able to read what was said in HANSARD tomorrow.

Mr. John Lee: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 4, leave out lines 30 to 32.
This Amendment and Amendment No. 236, in page 5, line 7, leave out:
'for the purposes of any judicial business'.
are the only ones that relate to the important facets of the judicial functions of certain Members of the other House. I apprehend that it would be in order if the debate became a somewhat wider ranging one, since this judicial function is the second most important function of the House of Lords.
The history of the position of the Law Lords is that until the Judicature Act, 1874, the House of Lords exercised its judicial functions in a plenary capacity. Its functions were appellate or of original jurisdiction, in respect of matters such as impeachment. The decision was the decision of all Members of the House of Lords and there was, in effect, no distinction between a lay peer and a learned peer or a peer with legal qualifications.
With the growing complication of the law this was found to be an unsatisfactory situation, and in 1874 the lay Peers were debarred from voting and speaking on any judicial business. That situation has existed until today. As I understand it, the Bill will have the unfortunate effect, at least by implication, of implicating the judicial Members of the


House of Lords in its political activities. We have just been discussing the position of Ministers in the other place and the question whether there should be special provisions to enable extra voting places to be created in the other House. That provision was defended by the Government broadly on the ground of convenience. They said that it might help the proper expedition of business if extra Ministers were created in the other place and that it would be anomalous if those Ministers were not vested with the franchise of voting rights.
Even if that argument is tenable—and many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee hold most emphatically that it is not—it certainly cannot be said to be true of the position of the Law Lords. Under the practice has grown up—which hon. Members of all parties would probably commend—although the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls sit in the House of Lords and have the same voting rights as do ordinary lay members of the Chamber, they do not generally take part in political debates or in the discussion of matters that are recognisably within the ambit of ordinary political controversy.
That does not mean to say that none of them ever makes a controversial speech; indeed, Lord Goddard has been known to be explosively controversial in respect of a number of social issues—but they were not issues which were recognisably within the scope of party politics.
12.15 p.m.
Why on earth do the Government regard it as necessary gratuitously to exempt the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary from the provisions relating to disqualification that otherwise would apply? Why should they place the Lords of Appeal in this specially privileged position? Subsection (1) provides that
A peer of first creation who is for the time being the holder of an office to which this section applies, that is … any high judicial office within the meaning of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 as amended by section 5 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1887, shall be qualified as a voting peer whether or not he is or could be so qualified by virtue of voting declaration under the foregoing provisions of this Act".
It would surely have been far more appropriate if, instead of that provision,

there had been a provision which excluded all the judicial Lords from taking part in the political business of the House of Lords. In the absence of such a provision I commend the Amendment. It would at any rate prevent the situation from becoming even worse.
For some time many hon. Members have felt a measure of concern at the anomalous position of the judicial peerage in a political system. I think in particular of the Lord Chancellor, since he is a high judicial officer and is referred, to together with the other non-political judicial Lords, in paragraph 62 of the White Paper. It might be appropriate if I read part of that paragraph, since it is relevant to this discussion. It says:
The Government believes it would be appropriate for all serving law lords, i.e., the Lord Chancellor, Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and other peers, such as the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls, who hold high judicial office, to possess voting rights; but since any distinction between those who could meet the attendance requirement and those who could not would be entirely arbitrary, it is proposed that all serving law lords should possess the right to vote by virtue of their office, irrespective of their age or attendance.'—
the magic figure of 72 does not seem to come in there—
Law Lords who have retired from those offices would however be subject to the ordinary rules and qualify for voting rights on non-judicial business only if they met the attendance requirement and had not passed the age of retirement.
In parenthesis, it is strange that if a Law Lord can, notwithstanding other provisions, be considered as fit to go on exercising his judicial functions over the age of 72, others should not be considered fit to exercise other tasks, not noticeably more onerous in terms of the mental faculties required, after that age. But that is not the main point at issue.
The nub of the issue is this. The Government have again burked the anomalous position of the judiciary in relation to the Second Chamber and, a fortiori, the position of the Lord Chancellor in that Chamber. So far from the position in relation to the high judicial offices being made clear in conformity with the general belief, shared by hon. Members on both sides, that the judiciary should be separate from the Legislature and the Executive, it is gratuitously made worse.
In recent years, there have been a number of cases with strong political


undertones in which the position of people formerly connected with the Government has been somewhat delicate. I merely mention, and pass no comment on, the decision of the House of Lords in Joyce v. Director of Public Prosecutions which made one wonder whether the Lord Chancellor should be politician and judge at the same time. On a lower plane, political influences are not wholly non-existent in judicial proceedings. Is every hon. Member satisfied with the conduct of the various spectacular trials in the summer of 1963 which are generally referred to by the blanket term "the Profumo affair"? I merely pray that in aid of the case for separation.
If we are to have this Bill at all, it would be sensible to do something about completing the separation between the judiciary and the political system which effectively exists, for the most part, at the lower plane but which, on strict constitutional law, does not exist in the House of Lords. Instead, the Government, as anticipated in paragraph 62 of the White Paper and in the Clause, propose specially to preserve their voting rights.
I should like to know whether the opinions of the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary were canvassed. Were they ever asked, "Do you want to vote on political matters?". How many Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, Masters of the Rolls and Lords Chief Justice have taken part in political debates over the last 50 years? How many of them spoke on the nationalisation of the coal industry or on the more recent Transport Bill? How many have spoken in debates on, for instance, Rhodesia? The answer is, very few, if any. Normally they confine themselves to social issues and organisation and methods Bills like the Supreme Court of Judicature and Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bills. The nearest that they have come to what some of them would regard as the muddy fields of political controversy is to discussing what might loosely be called Home Office issues—capital punishment, reform of the prisons, the probation service, and the like. Very rarely do they think it prudent or proper to stray outside those matters and to deal with political issues.
A factor which will influence my hon. Friends and myself in deciding whether

to push the Amendment to a Division is this. We want to know why the Government thought it necessary to go out of their way to preserve the voting rights of people who do not generally vote or wish to vote. Surely all that was needed was a provision which protected them from any impediment which prevented them from sitting in the Chamber. It would be better to take the judicial Lords out of the House of Lords and constitute them as a separate court and to covert the office of the Lord Chancellor into a full-time job. I do not see how the Lord Chancellor can effectively carry out the job of presiding over the judicial body in the House of Lords, speak in the House of Lords on a host of different political issues and sometimes lead that body as well, although that does not apply now because there is a separate Leader of the House. It is, however, within the recollection of the Committee that before now a Lord Chancellor has doubled up on all three occupations, which is not very satisfactory.
When we come to the main debate on the Clause, there will be an opportunity to discuss the constitution, appointment, promotion and general regulation of the judiciary. I commend the Amendment, not as an example of perfection, but on grounds of simplicity. At least it would not make a bad situation worse. It would not invite the judicial Lords to become political creatures. It might do something to spare them the embarrassment which the Bill will obviously cause them.
The provision in the Bill is seemingly uncontroversial and unexceptionable. However, when examined closely, one sees that it is riddled with anomalies, fraught with controversy and highly productive of doubt. There are many questions to which I hope the Minister will reply. I trust that we shall not find our business abridged by some interference because these are important matters. Whether or not hon. Members agree with me about the scrupulous separation of the judiciary from the Executive and the political system, nobody can doubt that this is a matter of the gravest importance.

Mr. Iremonger: Would the hon. Gentleman deal with something which other hon. Members besides myself may not have fully apprehended? Will the Law Lords, whether exempted from disqualification or not, be allocated to one of the


camps—the Government camp, the other camp, the neutral camp or the cross-bencher camp? Will they be able to pick and choose which camp they will join?

Mr. Lee: I do not know, and I suspect that the Government do not know. That is yet another point which will need to be resolved. Will there be another category of peer? Will there be Government, Opposition, Liberal, cross-bencher and judicial Lords? It is pertinent to inquire whether they will be given a special bench, like the bishops, on which they can sit uncontaminated by political controversy. It is important that we should know the answer to these points. I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. I look forward with eagerness to hearing what the Minister has to say about that matter.

[Mr. HAROLD GURDEN in the Chair]

12.30 p.m.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I support the argument of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) that the separation of peers should be the corner-stone of any rightful constitution. It would be a corner-stone in a Scottish constitution. I believe that, had it not been for the Treaty of Union, we should have looked after this corner-stone much better. The tragic fact is that it has been allowed to slip. I want to direct some of my remarks to the position of the Scottish Law Lords.
The corner-stone has slipped very far in Scotland, because judges of the Court of Session—they are the ones who are contenders for what is covered by this phrase "high judicial office"—are appointed, as far as the outward observer can see, from among those who have served political parties well. It is curious to note how disinterested political beings, once they go to the Scottish Bar, have immediately embraced one political party or the other, even to the point of standing for Parliament. I have seldom known less politically interested aspirants to these benches than can be found among those who stand as candidates from among the profession of Scottish advocates. They are driven to this because of the system of appointment to the bench.
Already we have slipped so far that judges, although we should think of them as being above all this, become very involved and, instead of being cross-benchers or independently minded or, even before the dramatic emergence of my party, Scottish Nationalists, they have to arrange their beliefs to fit in with one of the two parties which gave them the possibility of being appointed ultimately to high judicial office.
The two Law Officers of the Crown in Scotland, the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland, are almost invariably appointed by the Government of the day from among their own ranks. Inevitably it is lawyers sitting in the House of Commons on the Government side who are appointed to be Law Officers. Even this practice, which has something to commend it, has been departed from. I think that there was one exception in fairly recent times when the Government of the day appointed a Law Officer from the Opposition side.
After the Scottish Law Officers have been appointed—at present neither of them has a seat in the House of Commons—it is the function of the Lord Advocate, as the senior of the two Scottish Law Officers, to appoint people to the Supreme bench of Scotland. Here I am talking only about the civil bench, the Court of Session. The Committee should understand, however, that our Supreme judges have both civil and criminal jurisdiction, but the House of Lords is concerned only with civil appeals from Scotland.
It is, therefore, for the Law Officers to make appointments to fill the Supreme bench vacancies. The practice is, perhaps, what would be expected. The Lord Advocate invariably appoints himself first. Then he appoints the Solicitor-General second. If the Lord Advocate has held his office for only a short time, he may take the view that it would not be appropriate to go on to the Supreme bench too quickly; it might be a bit too blatant; the public might not like it. So he appoints a senior member of the Scottish Bar. This tends to be a much better choice, perhaps because the most senior office bearer chosen from among the advocates tends to be the best pleader, and in this way some outstanding figures get on to the supreme bench. I am aware that the best pleaders do not always make


the best judges, but they are outstanding in something, and that is always a good sign.
The system has been eroded. If anyone asks whether the separation of powers in the Scottish judiciary, considering the powers of the civil appeal court and the House of Lords, has led to the principle being eroded, I am said to say that it has been very badly eroded. It is a matter of incredulity, astonishment and public disrepute in Scotland that it has been allowed to go so far.
It is tragic that, when we are revising the constitution, we appear to be moving further away from this important principle. We should be moving nearer to it and using this opportunity to amend this very bad Bill and make it slightly better. We should be on our guard against any further erosion which makes it hard to find any distinction between the judiciary, the legislature and the Executive.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I am not ruling the hon. Lady out of order at this moment, but I should be obliged if she would explain how she relates her remarks to the voting rights of the peers.

Mrs. Ewing: If the Bill is allowed to go through without this Amendment, a vote will be given to persons automatically by virtue of their being within the category of "high judicial office". That is bad enough. I am seeking to explain that it is much worse than it looks, because already in the Scottish system there is this political involvement by judges. Once they sit on the bench, political involvement is over—in theory. Here they are being given political involvement again, because they are to have both a high judicial office and a vote in the House of Lords. This is a bad principle. The background that I have given of how judges come to be appointed in Scotland, and how their appointment is very involved with practical politics, which I think is a bad thing, makes it all the more serious. It is important for the Committee to know the practice in Scotland before making up their minds to support the Amendment or to vote against it. That is where my remarks are leading.
There is no reason why judicial officers should be chosen in this way. Any experienced practising lawyer could make

countless suggestions as to how the holders of judicial office could be chosen in Scotland without looking to the system of simply offering political rewards for good behaviour and long service. In the consideration of this Clause these matters should be brought out into the open.
I turn to the position of the House of Lords as a court of Scottish appeal. I should like this opportunity to be taken to consider whether the House of Lords should contain any Scottish appeal judges, whether the House of Lords should sit in judgment on Scottish appeals. I say this for two reasons. First, it is a breach of the Treaty of Union, because the Treaty of Union laid down that there would be no interference with the Scottish legal system. There was no legislation to alter that. It was simply a matter of practice.
What happened was that a dissatisfied litigant wanted a right of appeal that he had previously had to the King in Parliament. He said, "Where is the King in Parliament? He has gone South now. I have lost a right of appeal, so I must have it somewhere". He appealed to the House of Lords. The House of Lords put an umbrella over him and said, "You have got this right of appeal". The House of Lords had no right to do that, but it did it all the same. It was challenged by the Supreme Court in Scotland, all to no avail.
What is more important, because this is taking us a bit into history, is that Scotland has far too many avenues of appeal already. By perpetuating this system and not using the opportunity to revise the constitution sensibly, we are limiting the exercise of this avenue of appeal to the House of Lords to litigants who are either legally aided or wealthy companies, because no one else can afford to run the gamut of possible appeals in Scotland. Many a person is deterred from exercising his proper rights, because he dare not face all the expense involved in going from the sheriff substitute to the sheriff to the Inner House, through the whole gamut of appeal procedure right up to the House of Lords. As I say, who can afford to go right up to the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords unless he is either legally aided or is a very wealthy company? The whole system is in disrepute. It is bad if the mere existence of many avenues of appeal means


that people are deprived of their rights, which is precisely what the situation is.
It is very serious in a debate of this importance that we should be deprived of the opportunity to have Scottish legal advisers. It is deplorable that there are no Scottish Law Officers in this House to keep us right when matters of Scots law and the Scottish legal system are involved.
I need not say: where are they? It is not that they are absent; it is just that they have no right to be here. It is not as though there were no lawyers in this House when the Government decided not to look among these benches for appointees. There were lawyers on the Government side. There was also a learned advocate on the Opposition side—the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie). But perhaps the Government believe that in this day and age party politics have even got to the stage of colouring the giving of legal advice. Perhaps they unworthily think that had they chosen the hon. and learned Member for Pentlands he would not have given them proper legal advice on Scots law.
A deplorable practice has arisen. Where are the protectors of the Scottish legal system to be found? Who is keeping the Minister right on this matter? I do not believe that the Minister is qualified to keep the Scottish system right when a matter so fundamental as this is before us.
One of the Scottish Law Officers has just been elevated to the other place. That is a new departure, and one which we thought most interesting. It is better that he should be there than that he should be in no place. But it still reminds us very forcibly of the dearth to the Scottish legal system that we suffer by being here when we have no Law Officers with the right to advise the Government at times like this.
I should now like to mention one or two points about the definition of "high judicial office" as laid down in the Clause:
… any high judicial office within the meaning of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, as amended by section 5 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1887.
It is too narrow and unfair to Scotland. Why should not Law Commissioners be included? They are a new type of creation,

but who is more fundamentally important to the whole of the law system in Scotland than the Law Commissioners? They must be important, because we have entrusted them with the task of looking at the whole future of the Scottish legal system.
Why is the chairman of the Land Court not within the definition? He is another unique personality, and he has a unique responsibility concerning the rights of tenants of all kinds to land all over the mass of Scotland. He has a great understanding of the problems of the people, but he is not in the definition.
Why do we not have the Sheriffs Principal in the definition? They have a huge jurisdiction and immense responsibility. There is no counterpart in the English system. Therefore, the House tends not to know about them because it is too complicated to put them into the system.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: It would materially assist me, as I have to reply, if the hon. Lady could make clear whether she is objecting to the definition "high judicial office" or whether she is supporting the Amendment as such.

Mrs. Ewing: I am supporting the Amendment, because it makes the situation better. But whenever the phrase "high judicial office" is involved, I am entitled to say what I think is wrong with the definition as laid down.
I have exhausted the list of persons who I think should be included.
Another matter of definition is the definition of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and the way in which they are appointed.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Harold Gurden): Order. This is all right, but perhaps some of the points which the hon. Lady is now on should be taken on the Question, that the Clause stand part of the Bill. This is purely on the question of voting rights.

12.45 p.m.

Mrs. Ewing: Yes; but in deciding the voting rights we have to decide to whom we shall give the voting rights, whether they are suited to have those rights and whether it would be an advantage to the other place to have such people. With respect, I feel that I must be relevant so far as I have gone.

Mr. Michael Foot: We have all appreciated the skill and delicacy with which the hon. Lady has put her case. But, in view of the statement from the Chair that it would possibly be more advisable to deal with the matter more explicitly on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, will the hon. Lady accept the advice of the Chair on that account so that we may hear her dealing with the questions more elaborately when we reach that point?

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady's last remarks were exactly right, and that is what I had in mind.

Mrs. Ewing: I do not know whether to seek to earn the approbation of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) or the approbation of Mr. Gurden. If I have to choose, I will concentrate on Mr. Gurden.
I should like to make a few brief remarks on this other definition which allows 15 years in practice as an advocate as one qualification. We should also understand that, although Scotland has a divided legal profession, the solicitors' branch has a large right of audience, unlike the solicitors' branch of the legal profession in England. For instance, in Glasgow the Shrieval jurisdiction covers the work of the second busiest court in Europe. It is the court of the business man and the insurance companies where men and women of skill make their living exclusively by pleading in cases with no financial upward limit. Bearing this in mind, there are great pleaders to be found amongst its ranks. It seems a pity that such persons are excluded by definition.
On age, as we know, judges are not thought to stop getting wiser at a certain moment in their lives. It is strange that judges should be thought the only samples of humanity who keep getting wiser as they grow older. But perhaps some other hon. Members might like to deal with this question more fully.
I do not see why judges should have any special privileges and be given a vote in the other place merely because they are judges and hold a judicial office. I have already argued that it is an erosion of the very important principle, but I should like to add the argument that there are positive reasons for thinking

that judges would be ill-qualified to participate in debates involving political decisions. In my experience, the very nature of a judge's life tends to limit his area of decision to isolation of a problem, to strict rules of relevance, and to a narrow look at a subject. As we all know, in both this and the other Chamber rules of relevance are not perhaps the order of the day.
For these reasons, I support the Amendment.

Mr. Michael English: I support the Amendment, to which I attached my name with my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee), who put the position as an English barrister sees it, and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing), who has the advantage of a training and qualification in the Scottish law and sees disadvantages from that point of view.
It is true to say of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading that the very fact that he is a member of the Bar, which enabled him so ably to expound the reasons for the Amendment from a legal point of view, could perhaps inhibit him, as he implied, in discussing the activities of certain judicial peers in another place.
We should consider precisely what the Clause will be used for if it is passed. There are no good reasons for the House of Lords being a court of appeal. The reasons why it should not have been fully expounded in a book by the present Lord Chancellor, who is honest enough to say that he is still of the opinion he held before he became Lord Chancellor. It is a complete accident that the House of Lords remained a court of appeal after 1873, when the English legal system was revised by the Judicature Acts of 1873–1875. The House of Lords was struck out as a court of appeal, and the present Court of Appeal was created with the object of there being a proper appeal system in English law which involved separation of powers, which did not have one branch of the Legislature acting as a court of appeal. Unfortunately, that branch of the Legislature strongly objected. It left the Court of Appeal, but put itself as a further Court of Appeal on top. The only group of people that benefit is the legal profession. Instead of there being one right of appeal


there are two, and the process of appeal in Britain is twice as costly—and sometimes more—as it need be.
Parliament has already once decided, when reforming the English legal system, that a double appeal system is unnecessary. Then merely because a Government changed and there was a change in the composition of the House between 1873 and 1875, the Act was altered before it came into force, not to get rid of the Court of Appeal that it had created but to put the House of Lords back on top and provide an extra appeal which had never existed. It is quite unnecessary. Many lawyers will rightly say that the Law Lords may be more competent as judges of appeal than some of their juniors, as it were. That is inevitable, because under the present system the highest court is the House of Lords, and one would expect the most able judges eventually to find their way there.
The Bill provided a very good opportunity quietly to repeal the part of the Judicature Act, 1875, that I have mentioned. To fail to do so and say at the same time that we want to encourage the Law Lords to participate in political activities in another place is totally wrong. There was a day and age before the Act of Settlement, I think, when puisne judges sat in the House of Commons, but does anybody say that they should do so now? Recorders can and do still sit here, and this is perhaps the last relic of that system. But I do not think that it is generally felt by the country as a whole that there should be any degree of confusion between the Legislature which passes the law and the courts which interpret it and decide whether people have been guilty of offences under it.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Harold Gurden): Order. I say the same to the hon. Gentleman as I said to the hon Lady. I am not ruling him out of order, but would he explain how he relates what he is saying specifically to the voting rights?

Mr. English: The point at issue is that it is undesirable in principle to confuse legislation with adjudication, although it is partly inevitable at present in that the House of Lords is both one branch of this legislature and the highest court of

appeal. There is no need to make the position worse, as the Bill does, by going out of our way to say that all peers who really become peers solely for judicial reasons—because if they did not the House of Lords would not be able to sit as a Court, as it would not have the necessary number of Law Lords—shall have a political vote. The object of the Amendment is to cure the defect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading gave an admirable description of the difficulties, but to some extent he is handicapped by being a barrister. Not having that handicap, I thought that I would investigate exactly what part the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary played in the non-judicial work of the House of Lords. They prove my point almost explicitly. In this context, for the purpose of my illustrations, I have deliberately restricted myself to the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. Law Lords within the meaning of the Clause and the Judicature Act include quite a lot of other people, like the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor. I do not include the Lord Chancellor, whom we may expect to indulge in politics for obvious reasons. I refer simply to the judicial peers appointed to the House of Lords for judicial reasons alone. One would expect that many of them would have been most careful to refrain from interfering in the legislative or political processes of that House. There are several who have taken that attitude, such as the late Lord Evershed, Lord Pearce, Lord Upjohn and Lord Donovan. None of them has spoken on the non-judicial business of the House.

Mr. John Lee: Is not the position made more poignant by the fact that Lord Donovan has taken that line notwithstanding the fact that he was a Member of this House?

Mr. English: That is true, and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
One recent Session, 1964–65, is the example I have taken. There is no doubt that many people in such a position deliberately restrain their natural inclinations because they believe that that is the appropriate behaviour for a Law Lord. Nevertheless, they are to be given a vote by the Bill whether they wish it or not. Clearly, some are being given a vote who do not wish to have it.
1.0 p.m.
I would have thought that if the Government intended to accept any Amendment this would be the one. But, of course, they cannot accept it because not all the Law Lords take the view of Lord Donovan and his colleagues whose names I have mentioned. Other Law Lords say, "We will take part in Measures which are of relevance to our job as judges". But this is likely to prove a trap and a delusion on their part. One can understand why Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest spoke on the Law Commissions Bill and the Criminal Justice Bill and why Lord Reid, Lord Guest and Lord Wilberforce spoke on the Law Commissions Bill. But when one finds judges expressing their opinions by voting on Measures dealing with capital punishment, they are proving that, like most people, on the subject of hanging they have passions either for or against. I do not think it a good thing that judges who may or may not, according to the law, have to perform certain functions should vote on that issue.
An even worse example is more recent. There is another type of case these judicial peers who vote on political matters tend to speak. This can best be described as something that was orginally a law case and eventually becomes a political issue. An excellent example was the Foreign Compensation Bill—

Mr. John Lee: And the War Damage Bill.

Mr. English: And, as my hon. Friend rightly says, the War Damage Bill, which involved the Burmah Oil Company. There are several such examples, and it is wrong and improper in the strict sense of the word that Law Lords should have voted. In a case going through the House of Lords on appeal from the Court of Appeal, I do not think that their law lordships would be overpleased if members of the Court of Appeal went around saying loudly that in their view their lordships were wrong in their decision. There are polite and impolite ways of saying so in the legal profession.
But their law lordships would be even less pleased if some people came along, spoke and then voted to make or mar a decision of their lordships in another place. Yet this is what the law lords

themselves care to do, because the whole function of Parliament is often to change the law as it has been decided by the courts. The courts decide on bases which were once invariably precedents and are still largely precedents. They decide according to the precedents of the law, according to what they believe the law to be, whereas it may be that society has rolled on and considers that the law should be changed. The only body which can change it is the High Court of Parliament itself—meaning both halves of it and not just their law lordships. But on such occasions their law lordships take strong objection—or those who like to speak and vote do. They have spoken on both the War Damage Act and the Foreign Compensation Act. The noble Lord, Lord Wilberforce, voted on that Act, and this was wrong. The issue was clear.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order. Mr. Gurden. Is it in order in this House for an hon. Member to criticise the actions of a Member of another place in his capacity as a member of another place?

The Temporary Chairman: I did not understand the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) to be doing so.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I understood him to criticise the noble Lord, Lord Wilberforce, a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, for a vote he gave on a certain Measure in another place. Surely that is criticising a member of another place in respect of his actions as such. With respect, this has always been ruled out of order.

Mr. English: Further to that point of order, Mr. Gurden. I submit that the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) cannot raise such a point of order on the Bill. It is similar to the situation where one cannot, for example, raise certain matters in connection with the Crown unless the appropriate procedures have been gone through. But once they have been gone through, or we are considering a Bill dealing with the powers of the Crown, one can discuss those matters. It would be an impossible situation if we were to be precluded from discussing what happens in another place. I do not believe that I criticised any individual Member of another place. I said that their law


lordships take two separate views. Clearly, there are two groups among them. If we are precluded from discussing what is happening in another place on a Bill whose sole function is to deal with the other place, we shall be in a ridiculous situation.

The Temporary Chairman: I understood that the hon. Member for Nottingham, West was not actually criticising, but it would help the Chair if he would confirm that. If he was criticising, he would, of course, be out of order.

Mr. English: In pointing out that their law lordships apparently hold two views among themselves as to their functions, one is not being critical of them individually. I think that I have demonstrated that they hold two different views. Those I listed earlier in my speech never participate in any non-judicial business. The others I referred to—and I mentioned several names and not merely one—take a different attitude and speak and vote in many cases. I merely singled out the noble Lord, Lord Wilberforce, just before the right hon. Gentleman interrupted simply because, to the best of my knowledge and belief, Lord Wilberforce is the one who has voted most recently on what I believe to be a political measure. He is in no way singular. Others have done it, but they do not include those law lords I first listed.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. It is perfectly in order to discuss these matters, but certainly not to go to the point of severe criticism.

Mr. English: I have no particular criticism of the two views, Mr. Gurden.

Mr. Sheldon: On a point of order. Mr. Gurden. I would like to clarify the Ruling you have given because it will have a bearing on a number of subsequent Amendments. Many hon. Members will seek to deduce from the actions of certain peers certain conclusions, and clearly for this to be an effective criticism one will have to single out different peers and show how they have behaved in the past as a guide to their future behaviour. Such criticism is inescapable if we are to ensure that we get the Upper House in the shape which many of us would prefer to what is proposed in the Bill. I will be pleased if you would address yourself as to how we can make this kind

of criticism, which is essential if we are to produce changes in the Bill of the kind required.

The Temporary Chairman: It is for the Chair to interpret the meaning of the word "criticism" in the context of what takes place, and that I have attempted to do. No doubt future occupants of the Chair will do the same when the occasion arises.

Mr. English: It is impossible in this particular case to avoid—not the personal criticism of the single individual, for that can always be avoided—but to avoid being critical or laudatory of one of the two views that their law lordships take; because there are two views, and any one individual such as myself can adopt only one of them. I myself adhere to the view that, in approximate terms, roughly one half of their law lordships take, that they should not participate in the non-judicial work of the House of Lords so long as they are functioning Law Lords. I am highly critical, though not in a personal sense, of the other half of their law lordships who do take part in the non-judicial work of the House of Lords.
I would suggest that it is particularly bad when on an issue which is one of law but also of politics, such as the Burmah Oil case, when there were party Whips on both sides, or the Foreign Compensation Bill, where there were enormous vested interests involved, their law lordships, or any of them, take part and vote. Some of the lawyer Members of this House are perhaps by reason of their position a little inhibited of criticising judges. I believe it needs to be said that the type of judge like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, who although a man of strong political opinions and active political work in the past, takes the view that judges should not intervene in politics is far more respected in the country as a whole, and I believe in this House, than the type of judicial peer who goes out of his way not merely to participate in the non-judicial work of the House of Lords but to participate on precisely those issues where it might be thought there is some over-lapping in his work in the one capacity and his work in the other.
I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is here. I have not been moving Amendments on


every topic, but have singled out only those in which I genuinely believed, and I would strongly suggest that this is an Amendment which my right hon. Friend could, and I hope will, accept; because only half of the Law Lords themselves would object to him accepting my Amendment. The other half would agree that it should be accepted. They illustrate that by their own actions. I would seriously suggest that we should not go right through this Bill on the principle of rejecting every Amendment merely because rejection of an Amendment illustrates something or other. That is the strength of the weak man who says, "I can never change my mind on anything." I do not believe that my right hon. Friend is necessarily incapable of changing his mind in the way of the strong man upon occasions.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: He has done it quite recently.

Mr. English: The thought mentioned by an hon. Gentleman opposite was in my mind, but this is clearly a simple straightforward Amendment. I know that there have to be judicial peers in the House of Lords so long as the House is a Court of Appeal, but this is clearly a simple straightforward Amendment whose sole purpose is to say if they are to be there for that reason—as purely legal peers—as distinct from someone like the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor—the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary in other words—it would be better if, while they are there for that reason—and theoretically they have not retired as judges—although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) has pointed out, they need not—they ought not to indulge in the non-judicial work in the House. I would hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would carefully consider between now and whenever we come to finish this Amendment whether he could find it reasonable to accept this one, at least, of the various Amendments.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman want to see the Lords of Appeal excluded not only from exercising suffrage in the House but from speaking on matters which have legal content in debates in

the House of Lords? He says they should be restricted to their judicial functions. Who is to give the other place guidance on matters of law where they come up as in the Foreign Compensation Act and important constitutional legal matters of retrospection and so on? Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to shut them out from making any contribution at all on those matters? If so, who is to make it?

Mr. English: I am, yes. I will be quite frank. I am saying that in the non-judicial business of the House, I believe that the half of their law lordships who take the attitude that they should not even speak in non-judicial business of the House are behaving properly.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): rose—

Mrs. Ewing: rose—

Mr. English: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I would rather give way to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Callaghan: If my hon. Friend is giving way to me, he gives me the opportunity to suggest that after that innings, with a few snicks through the slips, this is probably the appropriate time to draw stumps for the time being. I beg, therefore, to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Harold Gurden): Whether I can accept that Motion depends upon whether the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has finished his speech.

Mr. English: The hon. Member for Nottingham, West is so pleased by that intervention by my right hon. Friend that he will finish his speech fairly quickly.

Mr. John Lee: rose—

Mr. English: I cannot both finish my speech and accept every intervention. I have made my point. I believe that those of their law lordships who take one attitude are right and those who taken another attitude are wrong; and the hon. Member who intervened a moment ago


is precisely on the point. They tend even to talk on non-judicial business on precisely those issues that may overlap with their judicial duties and it is far better if they do not do it at all. But I would plead with the Home Secretary not to say we must reject all Amendments on principle. Here is an Amendment which nobody really dislikes. I do not believe that anybody so far has spoken against it and I believe half their law lordships already do this themselves.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

ADJOURNMENT

The Business having been concluded, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Order.

Adjourned at seventeen minutes past One o'clock p.m.

Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Milk

Mr. Monro: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that the price of milk will result in expanded output at the rate planned in his November statement on the expansion of agriculture; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the present level of profitability for milk producers; and what steps he is taking to increase the margin.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): The determinations at the recent Farm Price Review are consistent with the Government's production objectives and will enable the efficient dairy farmer to secure a reasonable return.

Mr. Monro: How many beef cows does the Minister expect from the dairy herd this year? What saving does he expect on imported milk products?

Mr. Hughes: It is difficult to make a precise projection on the figures. It depends on a number of complex factors. I am satisfied that over the four-year period we shall achieve the objective for 1972–73.

Mr. Anderson: What work has been done in the Department on the effect on consumption of higher prices?

Mr. Hughes: The present Review will impose no additional burden on the consumer.

Mr. Brewis: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the level of milk sales for liquid consumption this year.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): Sales through the marketing schemes of milk for liquid consumption are expected to be marginally less this year than in the April/March year just ended.

Mr. Brewis: What effect are sales of liquid milk substitutes likely to have on these milk sales? As the substitutes are often reconstituted milk powder, sometimes dumped from abroad, should not the hon. Gentleman be taking some action, such as perhaps imposing minimum import prices?

Mr. Hoy: One is obviously bound to look at the use of milk substitutes, which is growing but which is not a major problem. I am happy to tell the House that, for instance, the importation of skimmed milk powder went down by about half between 1964 and 1968, from 64,000 tons to 38,000 tons. Imports of whole milk powder declined last year by about a third.

Sheep

Mr. Monro: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that the price of lamb will result in expanded output at the rate planned in his November statement on the expansion of agriculture; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The addition of 1½d. per lb. to the guaranteed price of fat sheep on top of last year's increase of 2½d. a lb. will assist the industry in securing our objective of maintained production.
This, and the improvement in the hill sheep subsidy stocking ratio, will benefit all producers and particularly those in the hills and uplands where there is real scope for increasing productivity and output.

Mr. Monro: Does the Minister realise that the increase in the price of lamb will produce only about £60 for the average hill farmer? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this is an incentive when


weighed against the staggering increase in costs?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman should know from his personal experience that this year's determination on sheep, added to last year's, will enable the producer to benefit considerably. This is the view of sheep farmers generally throughout the country.

Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no doubt but that the rate of expansion will be reached because of the undoubtedly large incentive provided in the last two Price Reviews of 4d. per lb.?

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is quite right. The December sheep census indicates that the rate of decline may be lessening. There are clear signs that the flocks in the hills and uplands are increasing.

Foot-and-mouth Disease (Compensation)

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in view of the undertaking given by him to the farmers of Shropshire and Cheshire concerning the pound-for-pound contribution to be made by Her Majesty's Government to the appeal for foot-and-mouth disease compensation, why he has now decided to exclude self-benefiting contributions from the scheme.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: There are certain aspects of this matter which I am still considering. I will make an announcement as soon as possible after Easter.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Will the Minister bear in mind that no researches indicate that either he or his Ministry at any time said that self-benefiting contributions would be excluded? Many people take the view that the decision to exclude them is rather like changing the rules during the course of the match.

Mr. Hughes: I am satisfied that self-benefiting contributions of the type of which the hon. Gentleman is aware are outwith the spirit of the scheme. However, I am giving this question very careful consideration and I do not want to pre-empt a final decision on it now.

Mr. Godber: I do not want to embarrass the Minister if he is giving further

consideration to this question. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will pay full regard to what my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) said. When the scheme was announced in the House there was no indication that any contribution would be barred. I hope that the Minister will look at this matter very carefully, because there are people who have suffered materially and, as I said in the House previously, this money should be paid by the Government as they committed themselves to a contribution.

Mr Hughes: I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would consider very carefuly the type of contribution which has recently been organised by farmers in the affected area, with whom I have considerable sympathy. I do not want to pre-judge the issue now. I will make a statement as soon as I can.

Mr. Biffen: Is the Minister aware that a very sizeable amount is locked up in the latest contribution by the farmers which they hope will be matched by the Ministry? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the anxiety that there is for an early decision to be reached and the hope that the matter will be investigated with a great deal of sympathy?

Mr. Hughes: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point.

Annual Price Review

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent this year's Annual Price Review implements Her Majesty's Government's long-term policy for the expansion of British Agriculture.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent the terms of the Agricultural Price Review implement the Government's policy of expansion announced on 12th November, 1968; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Body: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the prospects for future expansion of the agricultural industry, in the light of the recent Review.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and


Food what further measures he is taking to expand agricultural production in line with the statement of Government policy made on 12th November, 1968.

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in the light of the Annual Price Review, he will make a statement on the Government's plans for agricultural expansion with a revision of the targets he set in his statement of 12th November, 1968.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: This year's Annual Review determinations provide substantial incentives for the key commodities in the Government's selective expansion programme announced last November.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, despite all his protestations to the contrary, he has dealt a damaging blow to the farming community with his totally inadequate Price Review, and is he aware that, far from encouraging the much-needed expansion of British agriculture, it will probably have exactly the opposite effect?

Mr. Hughes: I am satisfied that the determinations which I announced in the Price Review in relation to the priority commodities, beef, wheat, barley and pig meat, will have the desired effect and will enable the industry to be on course in 1972–73 in relation to those commodities, providing not only recoupment of costs but an injection of capital as well. The important need now is for the industry to realise that it can go ahead, but that will not be helped by the gloom being spread by the Conservative Party.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, if he is to succeed in his object, a vital factor is the confidence of the industry, and is he not at least somewhat alarmed by the fact that the vast majority of farmers have no confidence in what is taking place?

Mr. Hughes: I believe that when the industry has settled down and has studied the terms of the Review in detail in relation to the commodities, it will realise that the Review gives agriculture the tools to get on with the job. I am satisfied that what is important now is that there should be a concerted effort to give

the industry confidence, and not to deprive it of confidence as the Conservative Party appears to be doing.

Mr. Body: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that there are at least two essentials for expansion, one, the injection of more capital into the industry now, the other, more effective control over imported foods; and does he agree that he is providing neither?

Mr. Hughes: I pointed out a few moments ago that we are providing not only recoupment of costs but an injection of capital in relation to the key commodities. I agree that that is important, and we are doing it.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the industry as a whole is under-recouped by at least £6 million, on top of falling income, and that even in the priority products it is still unrecouped having regard to the total increase in costs which farmers had to meet last year? Will not the right hon. Gentleman look again at the necessity of providing extra capital facilities if he wants any form of expansion, particularly in the hills, where there was a bad winter?

Mr. Hughes: I agree that the industry is being asked to absorb some of its costs, but we are providing in this Review just over 80 per cent. of the total costs, which by comparison with past Reviews is very respectable indeed.

Mr. Stodart: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to suppose that the industry has not already studied the details of this Review and come to its conclusion? Does he realise that on two earlier Questions and on this one he has dodged the issue? What is the contribution being made by this Review to import saving?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman should go back and read the little Neddy Report and my statement of last November. The objective is that we should save imports by concentrating on the priority commodities of beef, cereals and pig meat. This we are doing. The Review determinations and last November's statement are pretty well in line with the "Little Neddy" Report. The Opposition, on the other hand, have at no time said what their objectives are or what they


would have done in relation to priority commodities. They have been as vague as possible throughout all they have said, both in debate and at Question Time. If they think that they have thrown a smokescreen over the industry, they are making a big mistake.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Answers ought to be reasonably brief.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: In view of the unsatisfactory replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter again at an early opportunity.

Mr. Peyton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the extent to which progress towards the net saving of imports of £160 million a year proposed in the Government's recent planning document will be facilitated or hindered by the conclusions of the Price Review.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: In setting the import saving objectives of the expansion programme to 1972–73, which I announced in November, the Report of the E.D.C. was taken into account. Our Review determinations provide encouragement and resources for the key commodities for that programme. The progress of production under the programme is described in the Annual Review White Paper (Cmnd. 3965).

Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that not everybody now shares his hopes. Will he take the opportunity to discuss with the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs the soundness of the forecasts made in "The Task Ahead" and tell him that if there is to be any hope for continuing selective expansion material must be provided on which the hope can be based?

Mr. Hughes: I am satisfied that what we have done in these determinations is to give the industry the right incentives during the first of the four Reviews between now and 1972–73. The determinations to which I refer are framed to encourage expansion of the priority commodities of beef, cereals and pigs. The amounts involved are £20 million for beef, £12 million for cereals and £5 million for pigs. This means an injection of capital of over £37 million for the main priority commodities.

Mr. Godber: The right hon. Gentleman has on several occasions used the

phrase, "I am quite satisfied". Will he now accept from us that the trouble is that he is quite satisfied?

Mr. Maxwell: No.

Mr. Godber: Whether the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) accepts it or not is immaterial. I am addressing the Minister. It is not satisfactory. Can the right hon. Gentleman name any organisation connected with agriculture which has said that it is satisfied with the Price Review determinations?

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman must not take my words out of context. I said that I am satisfied that the determinations on key commodities will get the industry going to achieve our import-saving objectives by 1972–73. I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to be satisfied.

Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as well as cushioning agriculture, he has a clear duty to the millions of consumers? Will he recognise that he must watch his import-export policy very carefully in order to keep food costs where they should be—as low as possible?

Mr. Hughes: I appreciate that, and one of the main objectives of any well-organised Annual Price Review is to stabilise food costs. As I said, in the case of this Review we have put no added burden on to the consumers.

National Farmers' Union (Consultation)

Mr. Jopling: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to improve methods of consultation with the National Farmers' Union.

Mr. Hoy: The National Farmers' Union is constantly in touch with my right hon. Friend over a very wide range of subjects. I have no reason to think that it regards our arrangements and methods of consultation as inadequate or defective.

Mr. Jopling: If the Minister is to have the full confidence of the industry, he must have good relations with the National Farmers' Union. Did he see


that the National Farmers' Union recently said that it could no longer have any trust at all in the actions, words and promises of the present Government?

Mr. Hoy: I cannot say that I read that report. All I can say is that the N.F.U. is quite happy with the arrangements which we have made now and over a long period of consultation.

Farm Incomes

Mr. Jopling: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he intends to take to help farmers recoup the drop in farm incomes.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement I made in the House on 19th March about this year's Annual Farm Price Review.

Mr. Jopling: A statement of that sort gives no hope whatever to agriculture. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that it was clearly shown from some figures produced last week that real farm incomes, taking into account the drop in the value of money, are now as low as they were 12 years ago?

Mr. Hughes: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is accurate in what he says, and it is important not to pay too much attention to a single year. That was the philosophy followed by his party when in office. It is important to realise that the underlying trend is steadily upwards, and real income in 1968–69 was approximately stable per full-time farm and on a normal weather basis. Those are the factors to be borne in mind.

Mr. Godber: Accepting the Minister's basis for argument, will he now not agree that the trend about which he talks, in both production and income, is far below what is needed to live up to the expectation which he raised in November and is insufficient to provide the import saving about which he spoke then?

Mr. Hughes: The bad weather in most parts of the country during last summer has distorted the picture. I am satisfied that, with the Reviews of 1967, 1968 and 1969, we have put the industry on the right course for the expansion we need in four years' time.

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by

how much increases in farm incomes implied by individual Price Review awards since 1964 have deviated from actual increases in farm incomes, with adjustments to normal weather conditions where appropriate.

Mr. John Mackie: The determinations made at particular Reviews cannot be directly related to yearly income changes which depend on many factors, as the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, besides the level of guarantee prices.

Mr. Mills: The Minister may huff and blow and say that he is satisfied about this and that, but what matters is the actual farm incomes of individual farmers. Unless these go up, he will not see the expansion which he wants.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions must be questions.

Mr. Mackie: If I may say so, that supplementary question has nothing whatever to do with the hon. Gentleman's original Question.

Food Imports

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what percentage food imports have risen since January, 1966: and how the rate of increase of home production compares.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): Food imports were some 4½ per cent. higher by volume in the calendar year 1968 than in 1966, and home agricultural output some 4 per cent. higher in the farm year 1968–69 than in 1966–67.

Mr. Godman Irvine: What was the hon. Gentleman's calculation regarding the position in 12 months as a result of the present Price Review?

Mr. Mackie: One cannot make meaningful comparisons of short-term changes in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests, but over the long term there is no doubt that the growth of output has exceeded that of imports.

Mr. Maclennan: Will my hon. Friend explain why these increases occurred and say whether he is satisfied that what is happening is in accordance with the


selective expansion programme where-under our increased demands are to be met by domestic production?

Mr. Mackie: These increases arose because of an increase in demand, but they are being met by an increase in production in this country.

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the value in each of the next five years of imports of food which cannot be produced in this country; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hoy: The value of imports of food which cannot be produced in this country fluctuates considerably from year to year on account of many factors, such as general trade fluctuations and the supply and demand situation overseas. The effect of these cannot be predicted at all precisely and therefore I am unable to provide estimates for future years.

Sir J. Gilmour: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that very evasive Answer. Would he not agree that there is ample evidence that there are many commodities which, with a rising population, we are bound to import every year and that therefore the food import bill must increase considerably every year?

Mr. Hoy: I think that the hon. Gentleman meant to say "accurate" instead of "evasive". It is true that the volume of imports has increased marginally in recent years by about 1 per cent. but obviously, with devaluation, prices did go up, and that, of course, was another effect. But the volume increase was about 1 per cent.

Capital Investment

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much he estimates capital investment in agriculture will rise in 1969 in real terms as a percentage of 1968 figures.

Mr. John Mackie: Such an estimate cannot be made with any precision. Investment is, however, rising strongly.

Mr. Godman Irvine: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that not only the farmers themselves but technical advisers on financial matters are satisfied

that there is no prospect of the capital being available which is required for the expansion programme?

Mr. Mackie: That is just not so. Investment has been rising in real terms from an index of 183 in 1963 to 203 in 1968, and the figures which we see for this year suggest that it is rising at about that rate.

Exports

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of total United Kingdom farm production he estimates is being lost through exports of calves, store pigs and sheep.

Mr. Hoy: Exports of store pigs to the Continent have so far been negligible, but my right hon. Friend is keeping a close watch on current developments in the trade. The current export of fat sheep, although more significant in relation to the seasonally low output, is no disadvantage to our long-term production policies. Calf exports, although not high enough at the moment to be a threat to our production policies, also call for continued vigilance.

Mr. Mills: Is this not another case of the Board of Trade acting without full consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture, and will the hon. Gentleman encourage the Board of Trade to think about import substitution instead of exporting our raw materials?

Mr. Hoy: No, it did not act without consultation. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wishes us to kill off the export trade of British agriculture.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: How many sheep were being exported to North Africa, and how many are going for ritual slaughter?

Mr. Hoy: I should require notice of that question.

Beef Production

Sir Clive Bossom: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what incentives he now proposes to give British agriculture to increase beef production in order to reduce imports from the Argentine.

Mr. Hoy: The determinations at this year's Annual Review can leave no possible doubt about our intention to encourage the increase in beef production which is a key part of our programme for selective expansion. But whilst recognising the contribution this can make to import saving generally, it is not directed towards cutting out imports from specific countries.

Sir Clive Bossom: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the present incentives are still not enough if he wants real expansion? Does he accept that the imbalance of the trade figures has been three-to-one and was two-to-one last year? Above all, there is a terrifying risk to health. Would he introduce a form of levy system, which I am sure would help?

Mr. Hoy: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by "not enough". This section of the industry was given no less than £20 million in the Review.

Mr. Hawkins: Is the Minister aware that there will be no increase in production of fat cattle in East Anglia? Possibly there might even be a decrease, as the costs have risen so high.

Mr. Hoy: In view of the substantial increases which have been given, I would not place great reliance on what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Manuel: Is my hon. Friend aware that no industry can expect to get everything handed to it on a plate? Hon. Members opposite seem to be arguing for the complete elimination of any risk in agriculture.

Mr. Hoy: I remind the House once more that 15s. was given on the end price. Hill and beef cow subsidies went up another £1 on top of substantial increases last year. I know that this section of the farming community will be very much encouraged by those subsidies, and that the industry will be prepared to take the risks and consequences of weather conditions, as it must.

Carcass Beef (Imports)

Sir Clive Bossom: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the result of his discussions with the Irish Government to reduce the amount of carcass beef coming into this

country from Ireland and substituting this for store cattle.

Mr. Hoy: Discussions with the Irish Government on the trade in cattle and beef are still continuing.

Sir Clive Bossom: Have not the Irish already been given the green light to go ahead with further shipments of carcass meat? Surely the hon. Gentleman would prefer to see store cattle brought in?

Mr. Hoy: No green light has been given. Two meetings were held on 27th and 28th February, and there was a meeting of officials on 25th March. Further meetings will take place, because we realise how important it is to the industry that this should be phased properly.

Potatoes

Mr. Brewis: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he proposes to take to control the marketing of this year's home-grown early potato crop.

Mr. Hoy: I do not think any special action by my Department is called for.

Mr. Brewis: Why did the Secretary of State for Scotland say in Monday's debate, "… we have a voluntary arrangement"——

Mr. Speaker: Order. No quotations in Questions.

Mr. Brewis: Do the Government have a voluntary arrangement in relation to imports from Cyprus? If so, what are its terms?

Mr. Hoy: I can say that one country entered into a voluntary agreement to restrict its exports to this country. It could be just as bad for that country if there were a collapse in the market price as it would be for our own people, and this is what we are trying to prevent.

Mr. Stodart: Is the hon. Gentleman confirming by that answer what the Secretary of State said on Monday, and that that country is Cyprus?

Mr. Hoy: What I am saying is that at least one country has voluntarily agreed to do so.

Later——

Mr. Godber: On a point of order. I wish to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a


point which arises out of an earlier Question this afternoon but which I have delayed until now in accordance with your normal wish that we do not impinge on Question Time.
In answer to Question No. 18 the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave an answer which appeared entirely to contradict something said by the Secretary of State for Scotland in this House on Monday. May we have guidance, Sir, on what can be done to obtain clarification on which of the two statements is the true statement?

Mr. Speaker: If Mr. Speaker had to give guidance on the need for all politicians to be consistent in their answers he would have a very hard task. It is not the duty of Mr. Speaker to reconcile the answers of Ministers.

Mr. Godber: There is here a deliberate contradiction. May I invite the Minister to clear it up now?

Mr. Hoy: I can clear it up. I was not certain whether the name of the country had been mentioned and I wanted to confirm it before making it public. It certainly was Cyprus. That is all I wish to confirm.

Cereals

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the present level of profitability of cereals; and what steps he is taking to increase the margin.

Mr. Hoy: Substantial increases have been made in the guaranteed prices for wheat and barley for the 1969 harvest and the standard quantity for barley is being abolished. These measures, following the increases in the guaranteed prices and the abolition of the standard quantity for wheat in 1968, will increase profitability substantially and should give cereal growers the resources and confidence for expansion.

Mr. Digby: Is the Minister aware that although these increases are welcome as far as they go, they are not enough to offset the decreased yields in Dorset after four exceptionally wet years?

Mr. Hoy: They are very substantial increases, and, coming on top of last year's, they are great encouragement. I

agree that harvesting was bad last year, but no Government—I have never known one—can make all that allowance for weather.

Bank Loans

Mr. Hawkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the cost of the increased Bank Rate to the agricultural industry.

Mr. John Mackie: The extra cost in a full year on loans by the banks to agriculture would be about £5 million. About £3¼ million of this relates to current farming purposes, of which some £2½ million is in respect of Review products.

Mr. Hawkins: Will the Minister make a special additional Review allocation because of the extra costs which have arisen as a result of that £5 million?

Mr. Mackie: No, Sir. The extra £3¼ million which I mentioned is not only for Review products. The rest of the £5 million concerns landlords' capital, taken into account in the 7 per cent. included in the Review for rent increases.

Mr. James Davidson: What instructions have been given to the banks to make capital more easily available to agriculture for expansion purposes?

Mr. Mackie: The banks have been given instructions—if that is the right word—that agriculture has the same priority as export industries, and there is no difficulty for working capital. The banks must keep within the ceiling, and medium-term capital may be difficult, but farming is given the same chance as any exporting industry.

Devaluation (Additional Costs)

Mr. Hawkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of additional costs due to devaluation was borne by agriculture for the year 1967–1968 and are estimated for 1968–1969.

Mr. John Mackie: I regret that it is not practicable to isolate devaluation effects from other factors which affect costs.

Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman bear this in mind at the next Price


Review, if he is still in office, and make due allowance for it?

Mr. Mackie: Yes, Sir, but I would substitute "when" for "if".

Mr. Ashton: What benefits have accrued to agriculture because of the higher cost of imported foods due to devaluation?

Mr. Mackie: I did not quite understand my hon. Friend's question. A lot of things, particularly food grains, did not rise in price after devaluation.

Dairy Produce

Mr. Peyton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on imports of dairy produce.

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has now reached an agreement with the Irish Government over the importation of cheese into this country; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I would refer the hon. Members to the replies given by me to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) on 18th March and by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on 20th March, to which I have nothing to add.—[Vol. 780, c. 63; Vol. 780, c. 148.]

Mr. Peyton: When will the right hon. Gentleman have something to add? There has been a lot of talk for a long time. We were told that the Board of Trade is mulling the problem over, but meanwhile these stocks of products continue to mount. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has some sympathy from this side of the House in his immense task of overcoming the lack of knowledge, lack of sympathy and lack of understanding in the Board of Trade towards this industry?

Mr. Hughes: I appreciate and share the hon. Gentleman's concern for milk producers in relation to the production of cheese and the large stocks which have been accumulating over the last 12 months, but it is right to point out that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade came to a remarkably

speedy decision in relation to a prima facie conclusion on the anti-dumping application, and he is due to make a very important further announcement this afternoon.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Is not the value of this new agreement with Eire strictly limited, bearing in mind that virtually the same tonnage of cheese will still be imported? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Eire Government are planning to step up the production of other dairy products, particularly cream?

Mr. Hughes: No precise figures have been given yet. The important point to remember is that there is agreement to limit exports of cheese from Eire to this country.

Mr. Stodart: Does the right hon. Gentleman subscribe to the view expressed by the Prime Minister some years ago that the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement would do nothing to prejudice the interests of the farmers of this country?

Mr. Hughes: The agreement is working well.

Northumberland Commission

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to implement the interim recommendations of the Northumberland Commission on foot-and-mouth disease.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I expect that the first part of the report of the Northumberland Committee will be published and presented to Parliament on 1st May. I shall make a statement of the Government's views at that time or as soon as possible afterwards.

Eggs

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce legislation making compulsory the stamping of non-battery eggs with the farmer's licence number in red.

Mr. Hoy: No, Sir.

Mr. Tuck: As non-battery eggs cost more than battery eggs, and as many customers and stores are duped into paying high prices for dubious eggs, does not my hon. Friend think that shoppers who pay extra are entitled to an assurance


that they are not contributing towards this detestable system of battery farming?

Mr. Hoy: The Reorganisation Commission for Eggs considered this point and the Commission concluded that there would be no advantage to consumers in labelling eggs according to system of production. We saw no reason to dissent.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind and tell his hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) that the housewife does not want eggs stamped with anything at all?

Mr. Hoy: It was for that reason that we had to remove the lion.

Foodstuffs

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further steps he is taking to encourage the replacement of imported foodstuffs by increased home production; and what extra sum he estimates home agriculture will save on imports in 1969–70 over 1968–69.

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of temperate zone foodstuffs he estimates the British agricultural industry will produce in each of the next five years.

Mr. John Mackie: Home agriculture now meets some two-thirds of our needs of temperate type foodstuffs. Because supplies and prices are subject to so many variable factors in the short-term, it is impracticable to give a meaningful estimate of import savings or of the proportion of home production to total supplies in individual years over a period.
We are confident, however, that this year's review will give the impetus needed at this stage to achieve our import saving objective of £160 million a year by 1972–73.

Mr. Hill: Surely the Minister, in fixing a figure of £160 million as a four-year target, must have some idea of the time-scale of achieving that objective. Is it to be £40 million a year, for example, or a rising curve? There must be some kind of time-scale to which he is working.

Mr. Mackie: I agree that it will be a rising curve. The hon. Gentleman will

remember that last year we were nearly one million tons short on cereals because of the bad weather. We could be a million tons out next year. Obviously, it varies over the years. Many factors are involved—bad lambing and bad calving, for instance. However, these are our predictions for 1972–73. Of course we could give the sort of figures for which the hon. Gentleman asks, but they would hardly be meaningful since they could so easily be put astray by the weather, for example, as the hon. Gentleman himself well knows.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Does not my hon. Friend agree that imported foodstuffs provide the British housewife with a wide variety of goods and, in the case of imported meat at low prices, help in stabilising the price of the weekend joint? Will he exercise caution and not give way to silly pressures from the N.F.U.?

Mr. Mackie: Apart from being a little careful about the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, my reply is, "Yes, Sir".

Sir G. Nabarro: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the all-pervading gloom among farmers found expression last week through Worcestershire farmers demanding the resignation of the Minister and through Devon farmers demanding the resignation of the Prime Minister? How does he expect his policies to succeed when no farmer anywhere in Britain has any confidence in any of his policies?

Mr. Mackie: Time will tell.

Credit

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the need to provide further credit to enable the agricultural expansion programme to continue; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. John Mackie: Very few. Existing credit facilities, coupled with the support for the industry provided by the Government, should make sufficient capital available for the expansion programme.

Mr. Hill: Is the Minister aware that although the Government may not make any allowance for bad weather conditions, bankers must do so if farmers are not to go out of business? Does he not


agree that bankers are handicapped in extending credit to farmers not merely because agriculture is the priority after exports, but because of the priorities within the existing bank ceiling, as a result of which some banks cannot lend to farmers even when they want to?

Mr. Mackie: Farmers are not the priority after exports; they have the same priority as exports. Of course I agree that for medium-term capital requirements the banks have been asked to keep to a ceiling, but farmers have the same right to credit as other industries, as I said in an earlier reply.

Mr. Stodart: Are not bank loans "through the ceiling" which has been imposed on them by the Bank of England?

Mr. Mackie: Total bank lending to agriculture increased by £36 million in the year ending February, 1969, while other lending, through the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, has gone up by £24 million, so it is obvious that farmers are getting the credit they require.

Import Levies

Mr. Body: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, whether, following upon the Price Review, he will now gradually phase out the existing system of deficiency payments and substitute levies to fall specially on imported food which can be grown in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: No, Sir.

Mr. Body: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that no farmer will have the confidence to expand production unless imports are controlled? Can he think of any better or more effective form of controlling imports than a system of import levies?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is already a considerable measure of import control to ensure market stability, but it would be disastrous for the economy of this country and of the Western world if high restrictive tariff barriers were placed around the country.

Mr. Prior: Is not it a terrible commentary on the Government's policy for agriculture that, after four years of so-called

selective expansion in agriculture, we had to import nearly 5 per cent. more food in volume last year than the year before?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that we have met the increased demand for temperate foodstuffs by our own production. That fully justifies the Government's policy.

Mr. Hazell: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that levies by themselves would have little impact on restricting imports and would merely force up prices to the consumer?

Mr. Hughes: I agree. Hon. Members opposite want a total switch to a managed market, and that carries great perils with it.

Mr. Godber: In view of the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), will he circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the basis of his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body)? Will not the Minister answer? Will he not now give us the information instead of circulating it? Will he state the basis upon which he gave that answer?

Mr. Hughes: I gave the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) a full reply. Hon. Members opposite should pay regard to the possible consequences of the policies advocated by the right hon. Gentleman.

Beef Recording Association

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why the Beef Recording Association has not yet been formally wound up when its functions have already been taken over by the Meat and Livestock Commission.

Mr. John Mackie: As I said in my reply to the hon. Member on 26th February, there have been a number of financial and accountancy matters to be settled. Winding-up is now expected to begin next month.—[Vol. 778, c. 299.]

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Would it not have been even more straightforward, if the Meat and Livestock Commission is to take over the functions of the Beef Recording Association, to wind up the Association at the same time? Is there


not otherwise a danger of, for example, a duplication of effort which would be extremely expensive?

Mr. Mackie: I do not think so. It is primarily the responsibiltiy of the directors of the Association to wind it up. In a take-over like this there is bound to be an overlap between the two, but it is not necessarily duplication.

Vivisection

Mr. Burden: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give an assurance that no wild or tame animals coming into the possession of pest control officers of his Department will be handed over for vivisection.

Mr. John Mackie: I can give an absolute assurance in respect of tame animals. In the case of wild animals, however, it is occasionally necessary in the course of my Department's research into pest control methods to conduct experiments involving minor operations under anaesthetic on live animals of pest species. Animals have also been supplied to other recognised research institutions.

Mr. Burden: Does the Joint Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that these wild animals will not be used by his Department under anaesthesia or turned over to laboratories without licences being obtained from the Home Office to carry out such investigations?

Mr. Mackie: None of the establishments which gets animals from us is anything but licensed for the job.

Miss Quennell: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that in some instances pest species were turned over for these purposes. Will he tell the House of what those species consist?

Mr. Mackie: They are mostly rodents and wood pigeons.

Costs

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he intends to take to help the agricultural industry bear the increase in costs incurred by it during 1968–69 which result from the policies of the Government.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: This year's Annual Review determinations have provided the resources for the key commodities in the Government's selective expansion programme. Cost changes were taken into account at that time.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: As the Minister must now accept that agriculture has nothing like recouped its costs in the past year, how does he expect it to be able to meet increased food demands by home production when it could not meet those demands last year? As we had to import extra food last year, how does he expect agriculture to meet an even bigger demand in the coming year?

Mr. Hughes: We have had a good run on the subject of costs this afternoon and I have given a precise explanation of the position. Agriculture has been asked to bear some of its costs, but much less than was the case under the Conservative Party. For example, between 1952 and 1964 agriculture had to bear 63 per cent. of its increased costs against 21 per cent. during the last five years.

Mr. Jopling: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that one of the measures which he intends to announce in the next few weeks is the introduction of levies for beef?

Mr. Hughes: There is no justification for that question.

Deep-Water Fishing Industry

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the proposed reorganisation of the deep-water section of the British fishing industry; and what representations he has had from the White Fish Authority and the various sections of the industry.

Mr. Hoy: Yes, Sir. Associated Fisheries and the Ross Group have today announced that the trawling, but not the other, interests of these two companies are being merged in a new company on whose board the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation will nominate a director. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has decided that this is not open to the objection the Monopolies Commission saw in 1966 to a merger of all the interests of those two companies.
We welcome this outcome of the I.R.C.'s work and the prospect of improved efficiency which it has opened up.

Mr. Wall: Will the Government make a financial contribution in this merger? What effect will it have on the smaller trawling firms?

Mr. Hoy: No Government finance is involved. The merger will be done through the I.R.C. We cannot forecast what effect it will have on small firms, but we hope—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees—that it will make for a better and more efficient British fishing industry.

Mr. James Johnson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the future of the deep-sea fishing fleet lies in bigger units and more efficient skippers and men, with mergers of this kind and the consequent injection of capital into the industry?

Mr. Hoy: I agree. I am sure that the merger will make for greater efficiency and greater opportunities. The opportunity has been taken of looking after the interests of the employees of both firms in the merger.

European Free Trade Area (Fishing Industry)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the effects on the British fishing industry of the breakdown of European Free Trade Association talks on frozen fillets.

Mr. James Hoy: Since there was in these talks no agreement on the early removal of the tariff, the British fishing industry will continue to enjoy the measure of protection which it affords.

Mr. Wall: Will the Minister say whether the annexe to the Stockholm Agreement will be discussed with our E.F.T.A. partners? I understand that this has to be done before next year.

Mr. Hoy: Yes. As I announced on an earlier occasion, the programme or régime for 1970 must be discussed before that time arrives. The discussion will take place later in the year.

Mr. Hector Hughes: In connection with the Minister's reply to the last two Questions, will he have regard to the necessity of giving better protection to the British

fishing fleet against poaching by foreign trawlers?

Mr. Hoy: It can hardly be said that that supplementary question arises from the two preceding Questions, but I assure my hon. and learned Friend that we do all we can to give the greatest protection to our fishing fleets.

Oral Answers to Questions — KEIR HARDIE (STATUE)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will arrange to have erected in the Members' Lobby a life-sized statue of Keir Hardie; and if he will make a statement.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): No, Sir.

Mr. Dempsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that was a shocking reply? Will he bear in mind that the present bust of James Keir Hardie is in a dark corner of a part of this building where members of the general public cannot see it and that that is an insult to members of our party? As the Labour Government erected a statue to Mr. Lloyd George, the Leader of the Liberal Party, and are committed to erecting a statue to Sir Winston Churchill, the Leader of the Conservative Party, why will they not erect one to the Leader of the Labour Party?

Mr. Peart: I am aware of the great contribution which Keir Hardie made

Mr. Dempsey: You are not.

Mr. Peart: Of course I am. By general agreement, the Lobby has been reserved for statutes of twentieth century Prime Ministers. However, I am prepared to consider another part of the building as a site for the bust of Keir Hardie.

Mr. James Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend examine a number of statues of well-known nineteenth-century figures which are in the House with a view to finding a better place for Keir Hardie?

Mr. Peart: I have already said that I am prepared to consider the possibility of another and more suitable place, but not the Members' Lobby.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the


erection of a statue of this great Scotsman in a prominent place outside this building would be a useful reminder to the Government of the extent to which they have departed from the principles on which they were elected?

Mr. Peart: I am deeply touched by the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for Keir Hardie.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS' DINING ROOM

Mr. Ford: asked the Lord President of the Council why there has been a 30 per cent. drop in the number of meals per session served in the Members' Dining Room since 1964.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Lord President of the Council what action has been taken or it is proposed should be taken to reverse the annual fall in the number of meals served in the Members' Dining Room since 1964.

Mr. Maxwell: I have been asked to reply.
The Catering Sub-Committee views this decline with concern and is studying its possible causes and what might be done to improve the attractiveness of Members' dining facilities.

Mr. Ford: I thank my hon. Friend for his Answer. Would he not agree that the decline in the number of meals served in the Members' Dining Room might bear some relation to the decline in the purchasing power of Members' salaries over the same period?

Mr. Maxwell: While undoubtedly the rise in prices has contributed to the fall in the sale of meals in the Members' Dining Room, an additional and more serious contributory factor is that in the 1964 Parliament, when the Government had a very narrow majority, there was a considerably higher attendance and fewer pairs in the House.

Mr. Hawkins: Is not the real cause the fall in the standard of food served?

Mr. Maxwell: I cannot accept that. While undoubtedly there are many things which could and will be improved, the staff and management of the Department have done a considerable amount of work to turn the deficit into a profit. We hope

to improve the quality and variety of service to the benefit of Members and their guests.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will consider arranging for Questions to the Treasury to be answered on a Wednesday rather than a Tuesday.

Mr. Peart: The Question roster is arranged after consultation through the usual channels, but I am, of course, ready to consider any representations made to me, and account will be taken of the hon. Member's request.

Mr. Baker: I welcome that reply. However, would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Treasury, as a leading Department of State, should answer Questions for 55 minutes, which it would do if its Questions were answered on Wednesday, rather than for 40 minutes when Questions to it are answered on Tuesday? While the keenness of Members to ask Questions of the Treasury is probably matched only by the keenness of Treasury Ministers not to reply, this would be a very welcome reform.

Mr. Peart: I said that I would consider the hon. Gentleman's request. I hope that he will not make a partisan point. I have had no request on this matter through the usual channels.

Mr. Brooks: But would not my right hon. Friend agree that this proposal is not the answer because Departments which answered Questions on Mondays and Wednesdays would be subjected to substantially more public exposure than those which answered Questions on other days? Is not the solution to consider asking the Prime Minister to answer Questions from 3.30 p.m. to 3.45 p.m.?

Mr. Peart: I will examine whatever suggestions are made, but I do not think that that would be satisfactory.

Mr. C. Pannell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is possibly still true, as it was in 1959, that 80 per cent. of the Questions are asked by 30 per cent. of the Members and that, generally speaking, this is an overrated Parliamentary exercise?

Mr. Peart: I cannot accept my right hon. Friend's strictures. I believe that Question Time is a very important part of the Parliamentary scene.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, prior to 1964, the heavy demand to put Questions to the Treasury was met by a maximum of three Questions being put to it on Tuesday and three on Thursday, making a maximum of six a week, whereas today Questions to the Treasury can be reached only infrequently, with a maximum of two Questions? Would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter in that context?

Mr. Peart: I said that I will consider it.

Mr. Shinwell: Would my right hon. Friend agree that it might make the House much more attractive and interesting and might attract larger attendances if we had more time for Questions and less time for dealing, for example, with the Parliament (No. 2) Bill?

Mr. Peart: I note what my right hon. Friend said. I will examine it.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider another point, namely, that frequently, owing to the phasing, Questions to the Treasury and the Department of Economic Affairs come top in the same week? Would he try to arrange a different phasing, even if the day is not altered?

Mr. Peart: I will look into that point. These matters are decided by discussions through the usual channels, and I have had no request for such a change. However, as the right hon. Gentleman is an influential member of the Opposition Front Bench, I will carefully examine what he said.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS (OUTSIDE INTERESTS)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will seek to amend the Standing Orders of the House to ensure that at Question Time hon. Members shall declare any pecuniary interest in Questions asked.

Mr. Peart: I would expect this issue to be within the terms of reference of the proposed Select Committee to consider

the rules and practices of the House in relation to the declaration of Members' interests, announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on 26th March. As Mr. Speaker has pointed out, however, it seems undesirable that Question Time should be delayed by a series of individual declarations.

Mr. Hamilton: Would my right hon. Friend consider it desirable to extend Question Time by, say, a quarter of an hour so that this exercise might be followed, because an increasing number of Questions are asked by Members who have pecuniary interests in the Answers?

Mr. Peart: I do not think that it would be suitable to have an extra quarter of an hour for that purpose.

Mr. Hamilton: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPECIALIST COMMITTEES

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Lord President of the Council on what criteria the Government base the decision to move to set up a new specialist Committee; and what consultations take place with interested bodies prior to moving for the establishment of such committees.

Mr. Peart: A number of considerations must clearly enter into any such decision. The extent of interest in the House in a particular line of inquiry, and the availability of Members and officials to staff such a Committee are clearly important factors. Prior consultations take place as necessary.

Mr. Hamilton: Would my right hon. Friend say what he means by "prior consultations"? Is it not desirable that back-bench Members should take part in these consultations since it is backbench Members who constitute these Committees and who have the greatest interest in questioning, examining and scrutinising the Executive?

Mr. Peart: I do not dissent from that. I am always available for consultation. I often see groups of Members, from both sides of the House, who raise matters of this sort with me.

Mr. Wall: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the unanimous view expressed by both sides of the House during the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill on the need for a specialist Committee on defence?

Mr. Peart: That matter could be raised at some other time.

Mr. Mendelson: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a section of opinion which is opposed to the proliferation of these Committees? Would he accept that they can never be a substitute for debate in the House when Government policy is still being formed?

Mr. Peart: We must be careful not to proliferate committees. The resources and facilities are important. The Government are still continuing the experiment of specialist Committees. The House will then have to make a major decision.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Wall. Question No. 43.

Mr. Charles Morrison: On a point of order. I have tabled Question No. 42, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It was answered with an earlier Question.

NIGERIA AND ADDIS ABABA (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Mr. Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a statement on my visits to Nigeria and to Addis Ababa.
My main purpose in Nigeria was to see at first hand and to discuss with the Federal Government something of the problems which have aroused anxiety in this House and more widely.
As I had previously made clear to the House, I did not go to mediate between the Federal Government and Colonel Ojukwu. This is a conflict between Nigerians and, if outside help is needed, the Organisation of African Unity is the appropriate agency for mediation.
But, on the question of negotiations, I received from General Gowon a clear assurance that his Government are prepared, unconditionally, to sit down with Colonel Ojukwu or his representatives, to discuss a settlement. It remains Nigerian Government policy that they would not

agree to any settlement which breaches the principle of Nigeria's unity and territorial integrity, but there are no prior conditions for entering into negotiations.
Secondly, I received an equally clear assurance that the Federal Government stand by the guarantees they have given for the safety and security of all Ibos and remain ready to include in any final settlement such further guarantees as are required, in the shape of observers, for example, from the O.A.U. General Gowon stated categorically that, after the fighting had stopped, the Ibos would not be treated as a defeated people but would enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other Nigerian citizens.
Thirdly, I received most specific assurances about Federal willingness to facilitate the flow of relief supplies to the war affected areas. At a joint meeting I held with the international relief agencies and the Federal Government, I was given the evidence I wanted about that Government's readiness to consider any appropriate route, by sea, land and river, or by air, including daylight flights.
Fourthly, on bombing I expressed the deep concern which had been shown by hon. Members in the recent debate, and, more generally, about the bombing of non-military targets. I have no doubt about the determination of General Gowon and his colleagues, about the strict instructions which have been given, and reaffirmed, that bombing attacks should be restricted to strictly military targets, and about General Gowon's assurances that stringent measures would be taken to deal with anyone found disobeying those instructions. I have more doubt, and I strongly expressed this doubt, about the adequacy of control of air operations, and about the quality and efficiency of some of the personnel entrusted with the bombing.
In lengthy discussions on this issue, I stressed the need for still stricter control and felt it right to ask whether such military advantages as the present bombing operations produced were sufficient to compensate for the political damage to the Federal cause resulting from inaccurate bombing which caused the death of innocent civilians. The question of extending the rôle of observers has been raised in the House. I discussed with General Gowon—as I would have hoped


to discuss with Colonel Ojukwu—the possibility of extending to the results of aerial bombing the observer system now operating in Federally controlled areas. There are, however, great difficulties in getting an effective system of observation of bombing operations and when I met the team of international observers they emphasised these difficulties.
I made clear to General Gowon that the bombing issue as a whole might have to be raised again.
For the rest, the observers when I met them stated that they felt their work to be a success and worth while. They drew attention to their regular and unanimous reports confirming that they had found no evidence whatsoever to support allegations of genocide, or, after a few early and localised cases of individual indiscipline, of reprisals against the inhabitants of the areas where the Federal advance had taken place.
On questions of relief and rehabilitation I had, in addition to my own meetings with members of the various relief agencies, as well as with a fully representative group from the Christian Churches of Nigeria, the advantage of a series of reports from Lord Hunt, who accompanied me on my visit in order to follow up the work he did as a Special Representative on relief questions last summer. Besides meeting Federal and State Commissioners and officials, he devoted as much time as possible to seeing the work in the field, in the three areas we visited, which had been the scene of heavy fighting, and to discussing the work on the spot with international and British relief workers and doctors.
I visited, briefly, three relief and rehabilitation centres—one of them 100 per cent. Ibo—in three different States and saw the fine work being done, not least the proud achievements of young British volunteer workers, men and women, working in arduous circumstances and in very difficult climatic conditions. There is still a need in these areas for supplementary food rations for displaced persons, but both Nigerian and international agencies are now placing more emphasis on rehabilitation, and on the need to get displaced persons, and others robbed of their livelihood, back to

work. This will mean more concentration on the supply of the tools of production—farming, fishing and simple manufacturing—and on the supply of the equipment needed for education and other social services. In the spending of the money allocated by our own Government, the question of changing priorities will be constantly watched.
But in the area at present controlled by Colonel Ojukwu the first emphasis will have to be on food and medical supplies, and a rotating stock is being built up in federally-held areas, ready for immediate use following a settlement or ceasefire. And, still more urgent is the need to get supplies in now. The alternative routes proposed by the Nigerian Government and international agencies were examined in detail by Lord Hunt, and this is one of the questions I would have wished to discuss as a matter of urgency with Colonel Ojukwu.
Sir, I should inform the House of the attempt to arrange a meeting with him. Before I left London messages had reached me through reliable channels indicating his willingness to meet me. During my discussions with them in Lagos, the Federal Government told me that they had no objection in principle. Accordingly, on Sunday afternoon, I sent a message through Colonel Ojukwu's London representative proposing that such a meeting should take place early this week, and indicating no less than ten possible meeting places. This invitation was repeated in further messages on Monday and Tuesday indicating my willingness to fly back from Addis Ababa to West Africa for a meeting today.
I should perhaps make clear again that Colonel Ojukwu's representative had been told before I left London that I would not visit Biafra. Indeed alternative meeting places were being discussed before I left.
I very much regret that Colonel Ojukwu in the event felt unable to accept my invitation. There was much to discuss.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, I went on from Nigeria to Addis Ababa for meetings with His Imperial Majesty the Emperor. My delegation was received by him with the warmth and deep courtesy which marks all his


dealings with representatives of this country.
In our discussions, I gave him full details of the Lagos talks and of my impressions. He gave me a comprehensive account of all his attempts on behalf of the O.A.U. to mediate between the parties to the fighting, and of his marathon effort to reach agreement on the entry of relief supplies to the affected areas.
We analysed all these problems, and I can tell the House that there is a full Identity of view between Her Majesty's Government and the Emperor on this analysis. The O.A.U. Consultative Committee, at its Monrovia meeting later this month, will be discussing the next steps in the Nigerian situation.
I also had a useful and lengthy talk with the Secretary-General and senior officials of the O.A.U.
Sir, while in Nigeria, I took every opportunity to ensure that the Federal Government and their representatives, as well as others I met, were made fully aware of the deep anxieties which have been expressed in the House. Having now seen something of the Nigerian tragedy at first hand, I am more determined than ever that Her Majesty's Government should make every appropriate effort to help those seeking to bring peace to this war-torn land.

Mr. Maudling: We shall clearly want time to consider this very important statement. May I start by saying that I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House share the Prime Minister's fervent wish to achieve peace in Nigeria? But is it not fair to say that, however good the motives, an ill-planned or ill-considered initiative cannot do any good? Is there not some evidence of this in the dealings with Colonel Ojukwu? I gather that the Foreign Secretary told us on 24th March that the Prime Minister would not be opposed to visiting Biafra, which seems rather different from what the Prime Minister has said this afternoon. Because a visit by a British Prime Minister is a coin of such rare value and cannot be spent twice, I think that we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman to say clearly in what way the cause of peace has been advanced by this unique mission. In what way are the two sides nearer to one another,

and have we now any new facts which were not available before?

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I should make it plain that there was no ill-planned or ill-conceived initiative to getting peace. As I made clear before I went, as I made clear in my statement at Lagos Airport, and as I made clear in the message that I sent to Colonel Ojukwu, the purpose of my meeting with him was not to mediate. Anyone who knows anything about Nigeria or Africa will know that any attempt to get a peace settlement is for the Nigerians and, if help is needed, it should come from the Organisation of African Unity and not from any country outside Africa. That has been the basis of my discussions with the Federal Government and the Emperor and of my exchanges with Colonel Ojukwu.
When the right hon. Gentleman has had time to study my statement, which he has undertaken to do, I think that he will feel that the main purposes of my going to Nigeria and the four main matters which I discussed there and on which I have some very clear assurances were fulfilled by this visit, and it was necessary to voice the anxieties which have been expressed in this House by right hon. and hon. Members who have very different views about the Nigerian tragedy. Those were the purposes of my visit, and they have been fulfilled.

Mr. James Griffiths: Speaking as one who does not always share my right hon. Friend's view, I deeply appreciate his efforts in Nigeria and pay tribute to him for what has been a very difficult task.
I want to put two points to my right hon. Friend. First, I regret deeply that there was no meeting between him and Colonel Ojukwu. He has told us today the terms or suggestions offered by the Federal Government. It is very important that these should be discussed with Colonel Ojukwu. Would my right hon. Friend consider inviting Colonel Ojukwu to this country or, alternatively, asking one of his colleagues to go as his personal representative to discuss them with Colonel Ojukwu, since it would be a great pity if this led to any recriminations?
Secondly, my right hon. Friend confirmed today what he said in Nigeria,


that this is an African problem which must be settled by African people. Does he not think that an African settlement would be very much easier if there were a ban on all European arms going to both sides in the conflict?

The Prime Minister: I thank my right hon. Friend. His intervention reminds me of a further point that I should have made in answer to the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), who seemed to think that the pre-planning of the visit was deficient in relation to a meeting with Colonel Ojukwu. From his own experience, I am sure that he would be the first to realise the necessity for consultation with the Federal Government before an invitation was sent to Colonel Ojukwu. It would have been improper to have attempted to finalise arrangements or discuss them more thoroughly than they were. They were discussed on a contingency basis subject to Federal agreement.
As regards my right hon. Friend's proposal about attempting to set up a further meeting with Colonel Ojukwu, based on my right hon. Friend's feeling that the important statement of General Gowon should be conveyed to him immediately, the right place for this is the meeting of the Consultative Committee at Monrovia in a fortnight's time. I reported what General Gowon told me fully to the Emperor of Ethiopia, and I have taken the steps to see that the President of Liberia, who will be in the chair at the Consultative Committee, has been put fully into the picture. I think that that is the right place and the right time to carry on what was said by General Gowon, and I have seen that that will happen.
With regard to my right hon. Friend's second question, in which he endorses the view that these matters should be handled by Africans, if one could get an effective arms embargo it would make a big difference to the suffering in Nigeria. Having gone into this thoroughly, I take the view that it would not be possible to have an effective arms embargo imposed from the supplying countries. It would not stop the arms supply. Indeed, what arms supply there was would be highly imbalanced. The only arms control possible would be one on the spot, policing airports,

ports and other areas with independent observers. That would be impossible without a cease-fire. Therefore, a cease-fire and an arms embargo must go together, and negotiations are necessary to achieve that.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: The whole House feels that the Prime Minister has tried to do his best in this matter. On the planning position, will he explain why, on 25th and again on 26th March before he left, the Foreign Office offered to the Biafran representative here a two-day truce, during which time Colonel Ojukwu could meet the Prime Minister? I hope that that will be made clear?
Secondly, would not the Prime Minister agree that, after this mission, he has been able to add far less to our information than the article which appeared last week by the junior senator from New York who wrote the most terrifying report of what goes on in Biafra, which still alarms and fills us with anxiety? To that, nothing has been added.

The Prime Minister: On the right hon. Gentleman's first question, there was no offer from the Foreign Office or from anyone else of a two-day truce. The only people who can conclude a two-day truce are the parties to the fighting, which means the Federal Government and Colonel Ojukwu. There was no such offer of a two-day truce, nor was this in any way essential to a meeting. It would have been possible, in any one of the 10 meeting places suggested, for Colonel Ojukwu to come out. He did not need it, but we would have been prepared to offer British help with helicopters, planes or anything else to transport him. It would have been possible to have a meeting.
With regard to the article by the junior senator, which I have read, we have all read scores of articles, and their combined effect is to create the anxieties which right hon. and hon. Members have expressed. Many of the articles, resulting from a somewhat partial approach to the question, are particularly horrifying, no matter from which side they are written. I heard, not only from the Federal Government but during my visits to States formerly within the Eastern Region and populated by non-Ibos, several accounts of horrifying atrocities. Being a war fought with all the ferocity of a civil


war, naturally one discounts some of those stories without seeing any evidence to support them, and I think that right hon. and hon. Members should be prepared to show similar discount to atrocity stories from the other side.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the carping and prejudiced criticism from the Opposition Front Bench, he deserves the congratulation not only of hon. Members of this House who have been concerned about affairs in Nigeria, but of the whole country? Is he also aware that it is obvious that pressure exercised in all parts of the House forced him to take the initiative, and, wisely, he took it? Finally, may I ask whether, when my right hon. Friend was in Nigeria, he obtained any information about the source, or sources, from which the Biafran régime is obtaining armaments?

The Prime Minister: I was not really aware that the Opposition Front Bench was approaching the Nigerian question in a spirit of carping criticism. Indeed, I think that the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) in the debate on Nigeria made some extremely wise and statesmanlike expressions on this question. He will know how much his statements, as well as those of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, were appreciated not only in Nigeria but in other parts of Africa.
I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has said. I think that it was necessary to undertake this visit. It was undertaken not so much because of pressure in this House, but equally because of the anxieties felt by every member of Her Majesty's Government, as well as those who spoke in the debate.
Concerning arms supplies to Biafra, I think that there is fairly general recognition in the world about where these supplies are coming from. Statements have been made that no arms have been shipped from one or other particular country to Biafra. This I believe to be true, but there are such things as roundabout routes.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Prime Minister will understand that we want time to see his statement. It was not his fault that it came late.
When the Prime Minister says that the Federal Government's acceptance of a negotiation was unconditional, we must take it that this was qualified by the fact that the settlement must be within the legal framework of the existing Nigeria. We must take it, too, that any unconditional acceptance that the Biafrans make must be within the framework of secession. These two are obviously irreconcilable.
There are certain doubts about the capacity of the Organisation of African Unity, although very desirable, to handle this matter. I think that even the Biafrans accept that the British may have a contribution to make. I am rather against the Prime Minister probing in person, but the right hon. Gentleman will recollect that somebody like Mr. Malcolm MacDonald might conceivably help in this matter. He is a very experienced fellow when dealing with Asians and Africans—[Interruption.] He is. He is a man who establishes extraordinary sympathy with all Asians and Africans. I should not discount his use.
Finally, will the Prime Minister press the Foreign Secretary perhaps to pay more attention than he seems to have done to the case of an embargo on all arms supplies from outside? The argument that this would lead to a black market is not really good enough.

The Prime Minister: First, on the question of unconditional willingness to sit down, I think that this was an important statement by General Gowon. In the past there have been statements by both sides at various times saying, "We will only sit down if the other side, before we sit down, will accept our principal case." In one case that is unity of Nigeria and in the other case the nationhood and secession of Biafra. What is important in what General Gowon made clear this week is that he is prepared to sit down unconditionally. He holds firmly to the objectives of the negotiation. That is where the help of mediators, such as the President of Liberia and the Emperor of Ethiopia, can be of great importance. There is a big difference from the position in which neither side would sit down unless there was a concession on principle, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember from so much of his own experience.
Secondly, regarding a possible follow up and the right hon. Gentleman's reference to Mr. Malcolm MacDonald who, I think, certainly enjoys a unique affection and respect in Africa. Mr. Malcolm MacDonald was with me on this mission. He was present at all my meetings with General Gowon. He carried through a number of important talks on his own during the visit. He was also present at the talks with the Emperor of Ethiopia. Obviously if there is any possibility that Her Majesty's Government can in any way help, not directly, to reach an agreement—not to mediate, but to help those seeking to mediate—the services of this very valuable public servant would be available.
Concerning arms from outside, I have gone into this and we will pursue it further. We remember the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. In the first first place, I think it is inconceivable that we should get it through the Security Council. We might get the comfort of a veto, for what that is worth, but I see no likelihood that it will get through the Security Council.
Secondly, I have referred to the vast amount of black market supplies, of which I was given abundant evidence when I was in Nigeria.
Thirdly, there is the difficulty that some States assert unequivocally that they are not sending arms to one side or the other. Yet somehow those arms seem to get there from those countries by routes which I do not intend to speculate about in the House because there is no need to do so. I just wonder how we could enforce an arms embargo in that circumstance. That is why I think that an arms embargo would have to be on the ground at the points of reception.

Mr. Barnes: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is true that Colonel Ojukwu agreed to meet him in Abidjan on the Ivory Coast, which was one of the places on my right hon. Friend's original list, and that Colonel Ojukwu suggested either 4th April or today? If this is true, can my right hon. Friend say what happened to make such a meeting impossible?

The Prime Minister: One of the many messages received suggested that Colonel Ojukwu would be willing to meet in

Abidjan, which was not on my list. The list that I sent was: Addis Ababa, Nairobi, Entebbe in East Africa, Monrovia, Yaounde, Accra, Lome, Dakar, and even the Ascension Islands or a meeting on a British warship outside Nigerian waters in the West African area. I should think that was a pretty fair choice for anyone who wanted to have a meeting.

Mr. Cordle: Does the Prime Minister agree that General Gowon is not just simply the titular head of the State, but is in full control and has supreme command of the forces, that there is no stalemate in the fighting, and that he still has the initiative?
Does the Prime Minister also agree, following these helpful talks, that the reason for the policy of going slow by the advancing forces is General Gowon's genuine concern to see that civilian casualties are minimised?

The Prime Minister: I certainly confirm that General Gowon is, in every sense, the head of State and the head of the Government of Nigeria. There is no question about that.
I do not think that it would be right for me to speculate on the military position or on the motives of those conducting the military operations. But it is fair to say, after some of the things which have been said, that in a desperate war—and, as I have said, a civil war is always the most ferocious of all—General Gowon has responded to world opinion and to the arguments adduced by Her Majesty's Government, from our somewhat special position, in the sense that, for example, he has been prepared to weaken a direct military effort by breaching his blockade to allow food supplies through, even knowing, in so doing, that he was letting arms supplies through. I think that, and his concern for civilians, is something to which more tribute ought to be paid. If he were not taking this view, it might have been possible, with great ruthlessness and cost, to advance the end of the fighting. He is very concerned that nothing should be done to make a reconciliation after the fighting more difficult.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Did the Prime Minister ask General Gowon to consider Colonel Ojukwu's offer of an immediate cease-fire without pre-conditions? If not, will he consider asking him even now,


before a second million human being are wiped out.

The Prime Minister: I did not put that question to him—I got his statement about his willingness to sit down in negotiations—because I believe that a cease-fire which did not provide for arms control would be unacceptable and unworkable. I believe that it would be extremely one-sided, and that those on the Federal side who suspect that Colonel Ojukwu's motives in proposing it was to get more arms supplies and in order to regroup his forces which have been under considerable pressure, as the Federal forces have, would feel that this was not an acceptable proposal. It would mean observers for arms control. This is something that I have put forward. I believe that arms control without a cease-fire is unworkable, and a cease-fire without arms control is unacceptable. Both together would be a most valuable step forward, and we would need facilities to ensure that both of them were kept, and during that period they could open up the supply routes by land, by air, or in any other way, which are so urgently over-due.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: As a result of his tour, is the right hon. Gentleman now in a better position to assess to what extent the promises of mineral concessions to the French were Biafra to succeed strengthened or weakened? In the light of the experience that the right hon. Gentleman has gained, is he in a position to give further instructions to Mr. Christopher Soames?

The Prime Minister: I believe that the basic cause of this fighting is the deep inter-tribal feelings, not only between the Ibos of the eastern region and other parts of the country, but also within the old eastern region between Ibos and non-Ibos. I do not think that one needs to look for any economic interpretation of history to find the other causes. Where there is the possibility of conflict, where there are huge profits to be made, as there are in the case of the rich oil resources of the southern part of the old eastern region, the part which is now in the Rivers State, particularly in the south-eastern state, obviously there is a temptation for people who are looking for quick gains. I heard a number of suggestions about £10 million being involved

which would not be disconnected with the future control of oil supplies. I made some inquiries, but I got no real confirmation of it. My view, having seen something of the spirit of the people in the Rivers State of the South-Eastern State, is that anyone who advances £10 million on that investment looks like getting his fingers badly burned.

Mr. James Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members on the benches behind him, and the vast majority of the members of the O.A.U., believe that he has done a first-class job in mending any fences that needed mending in Lagos? About four million Ibos are within Federal territory. Did my right hon. Friend find evidence of these men and women being advanced to senior positions in the Civil Service, in the Army and elsewhere? I believe that this is the only way in which we can convince the five million Ibos inside the Ibo bunker of Umuahia that Ibos in the Federal territory are getting a square deal.

The Prime Minister: I think it is right to say that the position which the Government and the House have taken has done a great deal to advance the standing of this country in Africa as a whole not just in Nigeria, That was the view I heard expressed in Addis Ababa, not least by the O.A.U., which has not always been the most enthusiastic supporter of things done by Britain.
I saw a great number of Ibos on my visit to the east central State, including those in displaced persons' camps and elsewhere. The administration of that State is carried out by a distinguished Ibo who is in complete authoritative control of the State. In other ways I saw evidence of the advancement of Ibos. At the Military Academy an Ibo has received the Sword of Honour. I could give other evidence to the House, but only at the risk of wearying it.

Sir C. Taylor: The Prime Minister will recollect that I put certain proposals before him about Nigeria. As Colonel Ojukwu would not meet the right hon. Gentleman, will he have another look at those proposals to see whether they might be able to do some good?

The Prime Minister: In the light of experience gained by my visit we would be ready to consider any proposals. The


most constructive proposals were those put forward by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary towards the end of his speech, and that was the basis of my discussions.
The position now is not so much that of finding new and perhaps still more ingenious proposals. The basic thing is to give what encouragement we can to African leaders of great distinction, such as some of those whom I have named, in their efforts to get the two sides together to see whether this almost insoluble problem, this vast gap, can be bridged.

Mr. Winnick: I appreciate what my right hon. Friend has said on the subject. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is the gravest anxiety in Britain about the bombing which has caused a tremendous number of civilian casualties? Would my right hon. Friend be willing to make further representations to the Nigerian Government, because this is one of the issues about which so many British people are deeply concerned?

The Prime Minister: That was one of the anxieties that I expressed in strong terms to Colonel Gowon, and when my hon. Friend reads the terms of what I said he will see the basis of the argument that I used. He will also see that I said that should it be necessary we should not hesitate to raise the matter again with Colonel Gowon.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman referred to difficulties within the Security Council, and the risk of the veto. Surely that does not preclude the

taking of an initiative by the British Government? What is there to lose, and why do not the Government do it?

The Prime Minister: As I have said, and as my right hon. Friend has made clear, we do not rule this out absolutely. Such inquiries as have been made suggest that the chances are pretty slim, and I do not think that there is much point in going forward with it or putting all our money on that proposition. Although there is little likelihood of success, we are prepared to continue soundings to see what the prospects are. I got the clear impression from some of those to whom I talked, for example the O.A.U., that there would be no African support for such a proposal that any arms control should be policed from the other end.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

BILL PRESENTED

SALE OF TICKETS (OFFENCES)

Bill to prohibit in certain circumstances the sale or resale of any ticket for entry or admission to any sporting event or entertainment; and for connected purposes, presented by Mr. Alfred Morris; supported by Mr. Roland Moyle, Mr. John Farr, Mr. Eric Lubbock, Mrs. Braddock, Mr. Alex Eadie, Mr. Albert Booth, Mr. William Hamling, Mr. Laurence Pavitt, Mr. Albert Murray, Mr. Eric S. Heffer, and Mr. Richard Body; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 18th April, and to be printed. [Bill 106.]

THE NATIONAL MOD (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Russell Johnston: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision for contributions by local authorities in Scotland towards the expenses of the National Mod.
The National Mod is the annual cultural festival of Gaelic speakers, directly comparable to the Eisteddfod in Wales, organised by An Comunn Gaidhealach, the Highland Association, which exists to promote the Gaelic language and culture and the social and economic welfare of the Gaelic-speaking area or Gaidhealdachd.
In April, 1966, the Secretary of State for Scotland at a meeting with An Comunn Gaidhealach pointed out that town and county councils have powers under Section 339 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, to spend up to a 2d. rate, with his consent, on purposes for the benefit of their community. He then indicated that he would look favourably on any application that was made for expenditure on the encouragement of Gaelic or in connection with the National Mod. Quite a number of councils applied for this consent and received permission to make contributions. However, in 1967 it was discovered that the Section did not apply to district councils; indeed, a number of them had erroneously made contributions without realising that this was outwith their powers.
An Comunn Gaidhealach approached me in October, 1967, and inquired whether it would be possible to have special legislation introduced to enable district councils to do this, rather on the lines of the Bill introduced early in 1967 by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. J. Idwal Jones), to allow all local authorities in Wales to contribute towards the Eisteddfod rather than simply those authorities in the immediate area in which it was to be held. Since that time I have been in touch with the Scottish Office, from which I have had the fullest co-operation—I am happy to see that the Minister of State, Scottish Office is present—and which has assisted me in drafting the Bill. I have also been in touch with Members in the Gaelic-speaking area, and the hon. Members for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie),

the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm McMillan) and the right hon. Member for Argyle (Mr. Noble) have agreed to sponsor the Bill with me.
The Bill will not compel any local authority to do anything—it will confer permissive powers—nor will it lead to the expenditure of very much money. The sort of sums that individual district councils have mentioned range from £10 to £50, but taken together they will represent a not unimportant source of income for An Comunn Gaidhealach in assisting it to run its National Mod. The sum of £5,000 is regarded as the minimum which must be found before a Mod can be run, and An Comunn itself is heavily dependent, in financing its other activities—and its annual expenditure now approaches £20,000—on the surplus of income which is raised in connection with the National Mod. Local committees find it increasingly difficult to raise this money and therefore I hope that contributions from district councils will make a real, if limited, difference.
In many ways it is a reflection on our society in general that I should be in the position of proposing this little piece of legislation. We know quite a lot about economic investment and more than we did about the importance of the physical environment, but although we are continually reminded of the disruptive and costly effect of anti-social behaviour we still give very little attention to the maintenance of a sound social environment. We spend next to nothing on defending the values that stable and integrated communities give to the whole of society—often quite out of proportion to their numerical strength. As a society we think nothing of spending a million pounds on one mile of motorway, but all that we were prepared to give directly to An Comunn Gaidhealach—which is concerned with the fate of a whole culture, based on a language that was a written language before English—was, this year, a grant of £4,000 from the Government for administrative costs, and from the Highlands and Islands Development Board—which was prepared to give £1,000 to a team looking for the Loch Ness monster—a grant of £2,000.
The Celtic fringes are always good topics for the music-hall comedian, and references to haggis and bagpipes readily produce a titter, but we should remember


that not only within the British Isles but within the English-speaking community as a whole the cultural stimulus of the Celtic fringes has been immense. In literature alone they have acted as emotional banks whose resources have been continually drawn upon.
Time will not allow me to develop these questions, but I feel strongly that our attitude to the cultural framework in which we live is far too restricted. In my view the task of seeking to sustain and, one hopes, to extend and expand an old language which has important social values associated with it, is immensely worth doing. This Bill, of itself, will make only a tiny contribution, but if it makes people think of the wider implications it will do something much more important.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Russell Johnston, Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie, Mr. Maclennan, Mr. Malcolm MacMillan, and Mr. Noble.

THE NATIONAL MOD (SCOTLAND)

Bill to make further provision for contributions by local authorities in Scotland towards the expenses of the National Mod, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 18th April and to be printed. [Bill 131.]

Orders of the Day — PARLIAMENT (No. 2) BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress 1st April].

[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]

Clause 5

VOTING RIGHTS OF MINISTERS AND OTHER OFFICERS

Amendment proposed: No. 31, in page 4, leave out lines 30 to 32.—[Mr. John Lee.]

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: On a point of order. You may not be aware, Mr. Irving, that during the course of your predecessor's remarks on a point of order during this morning's sitting he stated that he would oppose any criticism of individual peers. That is as I understand it. This is a matter of considerable importance to me and, I am sure, to other hon. Members, because as a result of our being given a document giving particulars of the attendance of Members of the House of Lords we are now aware of the number of attendances of individual peers.
My interest in this, as, indeed, in other matters dealing with the behaviour of individual peers, was not to draw attention to any failings or otherwise that they might possess but, rather, to deduce from the actions of such peers certain patterns of behaviour which might guide us during the course of the debates on the Bill. That was my intention, and the ruling of your predecessor seemed to cast some doubt on the question whether we could proceed in that manner. Having considered this question during the luncheon interval I thought that I should raise it at the earliest opportunity, in order that the Committee might hear your Ruling.

The Chairman: The Chair would be concerned only with personal criticism. If the hon. Member is going to use the information as he suggests it will be quite in order.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: The Amendment raises a very important point, and the Committee is indebted to the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) for bringing it before us. It concerns the position of the Law Lords. I hope that I shall not incur your displeasure, Mr. Irving, if I say that I have the highest personal admiration for all the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. They are all men of the highest intellectual distinction, and render considerable service to the country. Some of us have recollections of some of them individually as hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The question posed by the Amendment concerns their position in the new upper Chamber contemplated by the Bill. It seems clear that in the present upper House they very properly exercise the full rights of Lords of Parliament as well as the special duties imposed on them under various Acts setting up the position of Lord of Appeal. It seems right that they should have the right to exercise their discretion both to speak and to vote on the issues that come before the House. It is necessary that they should exercise considerable discretion when issues of political controversy arise, since the last thing any of us would wish to see is the embroiling of the highest level of the judiciary in controversial party politics.
Having said that, however, we have to consider whether what seems to be right in the context of the present upper House would necessarily continue to be the case if we ever set up the sort of Chamber contemplated by the Bill. Indeed, the words which the Amendment seeks to delete not only secure that the learned lords concerned shall have the same rights and be in the same position as other voting peers; they go further and place them in the exceptionally privileged position which the Bill accords to Ministers of the Crown.
The Bill does not propose that they should have the right to apply for a voting declaration and go through the procedures and limitations which apply to other peers of first creation; it exempts them from that necessity, and provides that they alone, with Ministers, shall be included among what the Under-Secretary, in his somewhat unfortunate observation on an earlier Amendment, described

as first-class or first-grade peers. It therefore not only maintains their present position but picks them out for inclusion in the special category that does not have to comply either with the attendance requirement or with the requirement that peers should retire on passing the magic age of 72.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I saw both the Under-Secretaries of State for the Home Department looking unhappy and I thought that my right hon. Friend might like to correct what he said. I think that what the Under-Secretary said was that the other were second-class peers.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would not like to add the smallest fragment of additional unhappiness to that which the two hon. Gentlemen have to endure in seeing this Bill through, almost entirely without support from senior Ministers, whose absence indicates more clearly than words their increasing boredom with the Bill and their desire to find a way to abandon it. Therefore, I am very anxious not to attribute to them anything that they have not said, although I should have thought that it was a matter of fairly simple reasoning, as I hope my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) will agree, that, if all the other peers are second-grade or second-class peers, there must be a first class and that that first class must be occupied by those who are not second-class. If the Under-Secretary of State wishes to enlighten me, I should be glad to hear him.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): No, I should not like to comment on that. I was going to say that, if there is any sign that our senior and right hon. Friends are not here so much, it simply shows their supreme confidence in their juniors.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: They have much more reason for confidence in their juniors than they have for confidence in themselves. I am sure that I carry at least their juniors with me in saying that. That is always how junior Ministers feel, and sometimes they are right.
But I must return to this point. The words which it is proposed to leave out would put the law lords in this special, or first, category or class who do not have, as other voting peers have, to


comply with the attendance requirements and, equally, are protected from having to retire under the age limits. This, therefore, poses very directly the question whether the law lords should, in the new House, be in this specially privileged voting position or, as a secondary argument, be voting peers at all.
I have some grave doubts as to whether, under this system, they should be voting peers. We are abandoning—or we should have to abandon if, by an unhappy chance, the Bill passes on to the Statute Book—the present concept of the Upper House as a place with a large membership of wholly independent persons attending only when they thought that they had something to contribute and exercising very high moral authority because of the immense width of knowledge which their membership represents.
Instead, we are to have this much smaller Chamber consisting of the private armies of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and the even more private army of the absent Leader of the Liberal Party. These are to be set up in carefully constituted party political proportions which are supposed to be balanced by a limited number of cross bench peers and—although apparently not taken into account—a limited number of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and a very limited number of bishops. Neither of these two come in the 30 cross bench peers with which it is proposed to start.
It is very doubtful whether the Lords of Appeal, as members of the ultimate tribunal in our judicial system, fit into that picture of voting peers. It might be a great embarrassment for them to have to cast their votes in ways which might well be decisive as between the votes cast by the organised parties into which another place will be divided under these proposals. The risk of their being drawn into controversial and political matters would, in such circumstances, be very much greater than under the present system. Therefore, it is doubtful whether they will be voting peers at all.
Strictly, that point does not necessarily arise on the Amendment. If the Amendment were accepted, it would still be possible for them to be voting peers if they took the initiative of making the voting declaration and then complied with the necessary conditions of Clause 4. In these circumstances, it is unlikely that

many of them would make the declaration. They might well feel that it would be right in the circumsances which I have described that they should not take part as voters—but that would be for them. If we take out these words, it will at least leave the matter to them and expose them equally to the same conditions as all other voting peers, so I think that the right step, leaving open the issue whether, for instance, they should be voting peers, would be at least to take out the words which make them "conscript" voting peers without apparently any choice in the matter, and, equally, voting peers who are exempted from these age restrictions.
I do not accept that a member of another place will be unfitted to discharge his duties after the age of 72 or after the General Election following his 72nd birthday, but if there is any force in the provision—the Government must think that there is, or they would not have included it—should it not apply equally to noble and learned Lords? Is there any medical evidence that distinguished lawyers mature more slowly, become senile later, than other sections of the community?
If a noble and learned Lord is going to be able to go on legislating after the age of 72, should not the same apply to other members of another place? Indeed, the late Mr. Disraeli, when asked once why he had not taken up a legal career said that he had not done so because it meant "port and bad jokes till you are 50, then, with the greatest possible success, gout and a coronet." You would call me to order, Mr. Irving, if I argued whether the consumption of large quantities of port tended for or against expectations of longevity, but there is this association between the law and such agreeable things. Is it to be assumed that, as a result, learned Lords retain their faculties to a later age than non-learned Lords?
Equally, is there any reason why they should not attend with equal frequency? They receive a very proper salary as members of the supreme tribunal, which meets on these premises. It is probably easier for them to comply with the attendance requirements than it would be for noble Lords who earn their livings in geographically more remote situations.
Therefore, on neither head has a case been made out for exempting them from


the conditions applied to other noble Lords. I am not arguing that either of these conditions is good. On the contrary, at appropriate stages of the Bill I propose to argue that they are very bad, but it does not lie in the Government's mouth to say that they are good for everybody else but not for Ministers or for law Lords. Surely, if they are good for the rest of the other place, they should be applied equally to the law Lords, or they should be withdrawn in respect of them all. This is very important point.
Whatever rôle is played in the present upper House by the Lords of Appeal, it is inappropriate that in the future politically-orientated House—the "working House", as the Government call it in the White Paper—which it is proposed to set up they shall, whether or not they wish, be enrolled as voting peers. It is equally wrong to free them from the restrictions which the Government are seeking to impose on every other member of that Chamber, other than members of their Administration.
We are often told that another place is a bastion of privilege. It is curious that the present reforming Government should be creating an inner keep of privilege within that bastion.

4.30 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): It might be of assistance if I intervened at this stage to reply to some of the points that have been made.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In view of the Under-Secretary's opening words and in view of the manner in which a recent Amendment was disposed of, would he make it clear that his formula means that there will be an opportunity for the Committee to consider what he intends to put before it and that the Government will then reply to the points which, in the light of the hon. Gentleman's speech, hon. Members will make?

Mr. Morgan: That is not a matter within my gift. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I shall seek to deal with the Amendment in anticipation of the arguments that might have been adduced by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and others—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] If it is

then necessary for me to reply, and provided that that is coincident with the business of the Committee, I shall do so.

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order. I cannot recall a Committee stage, Mr. Irving, when a Minister, having anticipated what might have been said, has not agreed that hon. Members should have an opportunity to make their views known. Should not my hon. Friend be listening to our views and is it not out of custom for him to proceed in the manner he has indicated?

The Chairman: It is for the Minister to decide the stage at which he addresses the Committee.

Mr. Morgan: I thought that it would be of assistance if I spoke at this stage.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman said that he would reply to the arguments which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) would make but that the future course of the debate was not a matter for him. As he is the Minister in charge on this Amendment, is it conceivable that anybody would seek to terminate the proceedings without his consent? Does he anticipate one of my hon. Friends moving the Closure?

Mr. Morgan: I was not referring to that, but to the jurisdiction vested in the Chair to call an hon. Member who wishes to speak. I cannot anticipate whether the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West will be called or whether I shall be called to speak again.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: On a point of order. The Under-Secretary must be aware that that is sheer humbug. If he gets to his feet he is called. Our fear is that, having been called, he is making the last speech on the subject.

The Chairman: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Morgan: I have no desire to be discourteous to the Committee. I shall address my remarks mainly to Amendment No. 31 and I shall briefly refer to Amendment No. 236, which is also being considered.

Mr. Sheldon: The Under-Secretary is replying to the debate so far. He will be aware that the arguments adduced


so far have been lawyers' arguments. While I have nothing against that, since this is a matter concerning the rights of lawyers in another place, other hon. Members wish to express non-legal arguments. Although my hon. Friend may have considerable powers of anticipation, he cannot anticipate the arguments which non-lawyers may wish to adduce on the Amendment. Will he, therefore, delay replying to the discussion?

Mr. Morgan: I am at the service of the Committee. I have no doubt that the "numbers game" will be invoked in relation to the Amendment and that long lists of figures and complicated calculations will be produced to show what decision should be arrived at. I thought that it would be convenient at this stage for me to make the position clear.
The effect of Amendment No. 31 would be to make holders of high judicial offices subject to the age and attendance requirements of Clauses 3 and 4 respectively. The age requirement cannot be a matter of such absolute importance as one might have gained from the speech of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). Since the passage of the Judicial Pensions Act, 1959, and particularly Section 2 of that Measure, it is necessary for holders of such offices appointed since 1959 to retire from such positions on reaching the age of 75.
Much has been said to tempt me into alluring by-ways of argument. For example, the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) gave a dissertation on the shortcomings of Scottish lawyers. I regret that she is not in her place because the thought struck me that Dr. Johnson, who was no great friend of Scotsmen or of lawyers, might have found her case an ideal one. She might have provided a new victim for his invective.
We are not discussing the question of whether or not law lords should sit in the House of Lords or whether they should exercise a vote. That matter was disposed of when we dealt with Clauses 1 and 2. We are here dealing with a much narrower issue. Are we to accept that if, by chance, the judicial activities of certain persons holding judicial office mean that it will be difficult,

if not impossible, for them to qualify under the conditions of Clause 4, they should be deprived of their voting rights?
In other words, the attendance of the Lord Chief Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls and Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, who are Members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which meets outside the House of Lords, would not count towards the one-third level set in Clause 4. Is it right that such an arbitrary line should be drawn between them and their brother judges whose judicial business happens to be carried out in the House of Lords? That is the real issue that faces the Committee in considering the Amendment.

Sir Douglas Glover: Perhaps I may be permitted, with great humility, to correct the hon. Gentleman on one point. He said that we had finished with Clauses 1 and 2. I respectfully point out that we are in Committee; and that our arguments on this Clause may quite easily cause the Government to alter their mind at a later stage.

Mr. Morgan: If the hon. Gentleman checks my words, he will find that I said that the Committee had disposed of Clauses 1 and 2. I made the point only in the context of the Committee.

Mr. Powell: I understood the Under-Secretary to say that these Lords attending for judicial business would not have such attendances counted towards their score. Am I correct in understanding that he is answering in the affirmative the question which I put yesterday on Clause 4(2)? Is he saying that the words in the subsection
… (other than days on which it meets for judicial business only) …
qualify "days" in line 3 of page 4 as well as "days" in line 4? The hon. Gentleman will recall my putting this point to the hon. and learned Solicitor-General. I am just seeking to ascertain whether he is now by implication settling that question one way or the other.

Mr. Morgan: Far be it for me to try to animadvert on such a complicated matter, despite the fact that the humble opinion I gave on the ejusdem generis rule was upheld, as it were, on appeal yesterday.
When the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council meets, and I understand that it does not meet in the House of Lords, Lords of Appeal in Ordinary attending it would find that such attendances did not count towards their total of one-third attendances required by Clause 4, but other Lords of Appeal in Ordinary attending the Appeals Committee of the House of Lords, and doing business which is quite comparable with the business of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, would find that their attendances did so count.
The real issue in this Amendment, casting aside, for a moment, the question of age and fact that law lords retire at 75 rather than at 72 under the provisions in Clause 3, is whether it is right that an arbitrary line should be drawn between judicial business carried on in the House of Lords and very similar judicial business carried on a short distance away outside the House of Lords.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I want to get one thing clarified. Are these law lords included in the total of 230, or are they in addition to the 230?

Mr. Morgan: I have no instructions which lead me to believe that the holders of high judicial office who are peers of first creation will be additional to any calculations that have already been described but, with the greatest respect——

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Those who sit in the House of Lords are usually the same as those who sit in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Therefore, when they sit in the House of Lords they will get a perfectly adequate tally, and so need not be exempted in this Clause.

Mr. Morgan: By and large, one would find that very often they were the same people, but there could be instances of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary who for a disproportionate part of their time served on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, meeting, as I understand that Committee does, in Downing Street. They would find that they would not qualify under Clause 4 but, by sheer accident, those whose judicial business

was in the House of Lords would find that they did qualify. I do not think that there is anything more to the Amendment than that.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a question of principle which is, I think, similar to a point put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), is it not the case that this provision puts law lords in a privileged position, in the sense that in every category of people who will be eligible to sit in the other place it will be more convenient for some to attend than for others to attend but that in the case of the law lords it is said that we shall overcome that distinction by saying that they can sit in circumstances not applicable to other categories? In that sense, is not a privileged position being provided for law lords as against the majority of those who sit in another place?

Mr. Sheldon: If my hon. Friend would allow me——

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I really must be allowed to reply to that intervention first, otherwise it will be impossible to carry on our debate.
Provision has been made already in the Bill for public business, and we have spent many hours in dissertating on the merits and demerits of such a proposal. But, in this case, the similarity between judicial business carried on a few hundred yards from the House of Lords and judicial business carried on in the House of Lords—and carried on in both cases by Lords of Appeal in Ordinary—is such as to create an arbitrary distinction between one holder of high judicial office and another.

Mr. Sheldon: The Under-Secretary of State told my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that the law lords were included in the total number of members of the House of Lords, but paragraph 48 of the White Paper states:
Assuming a total voting House of 230, the figures which would be appropriate in the present parliament axe: government 105, main opposition party 80, other opposition parties 15 and cross benchers 30"—
and then it states:
(these figures again exclude law lords..


It is therefore clear that these people are supplementary, and the information which the Under-Secretary gave to my hon. Friend seems to be in error.

Mr. Morgan: In all humility and contrition I must admit that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has made a clean catch, and I heartily congratulate him. There is no question of their being counted towards that figure.

Sir D. Glover: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for again giving way, but what has come out of the interchange is very important. The membership of 230 for the other place is calculated rather as the scales of justice would work, so that another hair on one side would upset the balance. If, now, the law lords are to be counted in addition to that basis, the balance ceases to exist.

Mr. Morgan: If the hon. Gentleman listens to the rest of my remarks with rapt attention, he will find that I have an argument on that point, too.
I should like now to deal with one or two points raised in this morning's debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee)—and I believe that one or two other hon. Members fell into the same trap—seemed to be under the impression that all business that was non-judicial was automatically controversial political business. It is, perhaps, a shattering glimpse of the obvious to say that there is a wide range or business that is, on the whole, non-controversial, and where the contribution of persons highly skilled in the law is extremely valuable. I am sure that many hon. Members are aware of the contributions made by the law lords, particularly with regard to Home Office matters.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: What the hon. Gentleman says is perfectly correct at present, but the nature of the House of Lords, because of this proposed nicely balanced system, will make it much more open to controversy in the initiation of legislation. To base the argument on the present position is not merely farfetched but misleading.

Mr. Morgan: The right hon. Gentleman is seeking to make a debating point, and I doubt whether there is anyone here

who believes that the sea-change can be that severe.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Morgan: I appreciate the intention and aims of hon. Members to assist me in my speech, but I should prefer to carry on in my own imperfect way.
The law lords in the present day are discharging much the same functions as their predecessors, the legal assistants, discharged in a previous age. It was not unknown for the House of Lords to seek the views of judges. That is not necessary in a day when there are law lords in the other place. I am sure that their contribution is one that is accepted and one which can be assessed objectively.
For that reason—this brings me to a second point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading—I do not think that it was necessary that their views should have been canvassed officially as in the case of the bishops. After all, the Lord Chancellor is their natural spokesman and is in a position to represent their views.

Mr. John Lee: It is a novel doctrine that the Lord Chancellor is a kind of spokesman or leader in this context. In so far as we are encouraging by implication, in the provisions of the Bill, those concerned to continue to be involved, if only marginally, in controversial—perhaps politically controversial—matters, we may embarrass them in the fulfilment of their judicial office. Would it not have been better—this was the whole gravamen of my speech—to have taken advantage of the Bill, if we are to have a Bill at all, and excluded them from the whole arena of political controversy?

Mr. Morgan: Perhaps the term "spokesman" was too technical a term for me to have chosen in relation to the Lord Chancellor in this context. I will put it in another way. I do not think that the Lord Chancellor is an inappropriate conduit for the views of the holders of high judicial office in this connection.

Mr. Mendelson: He is the branch secretary.

Mr. Morgan: The hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) raised with great fervour the question of the representation of Scottish lawyers in the House of Lords. I remind the hon. Lady,


albeit in absentia, that by convention two Lords of Appeal in Ordinary are Scottish judges and they sit upon and determine Scottish cases. As there are at the moment ten Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, as the population in Scotland is roughly one-tenth that of the United Kingdom, and as the two Scottish Lords of Appeal in Ordinary represent one-fifth of the total number of Lords of Appeal, I do not think that the hon. Lady has a great deal to complain about in regard to Scottish representation.
The rationale underlying the objection to the Amendment is the supposition that by giving the holder of a high judicial office performing a valuable function in the other place as a spokesman upon highly technical legal matters the right to vote one automatically brings about a metamorphosis in his character and makes him a partisan political advocate. In view of what has been said, I will not anticipate the no doubt very full argument of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West on Amendment No. 236 but will await what he has to say, if he has the good fortune to catch the eye of the Chair.

Mr. Powell: I am glad to be able to satisfy so soon the wishes and expectations of the Under-Secretary. As we are considering two Amendments together, I hope that the Under-Secretary and the Committee will forgive me if I do not entirely confine my remarks to Amendment No. 236 which stands in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter).
Throughout, the Government have shown an insufficient appreciation of the constitutional importance of these Amendments, as of the Clause to which they apply. The Clause is in a sense subordinate to Clauses 3 and 4, because Clauses 3 and 4 set up the two major qualifications for membership of the voting House. In Clause 5 we are dealing with two classes of persons who are to be exempted from the necessity to comply with those requirements.
It is a serious matter of constitutional importance, if we are setting up a new Chamber and have laid down the ground rules, that we should then say, "There are the following two classes of persons who are exempt from the ground rules

and who will as such be voting Members, full Members, of the new small, allegedly carefully constructed, Chamber which we are setting up".
I imply no disrespect to the Under-Secretary who has just spoken, or to his colleague who has been so assiduous with him, when I say that it is quite wrong that the Committee should on matters of this importance be left for hour after hour, indeed for day after day, without the presence of any Cabinet Minister, any Minister who in the full sense of the term is responsible. I believe that this betrays either a misappreciation of the importance of these issues or a deliberately contemptuous attitude towards the Committee.

Mr. John Peyton: Has a third alternative occurred to my right hon. Friend, namely, that they might possibly even at this late stage have become ashamed?

Mr. Powell: It could be that they are considering together how to extricate themselves from the labyrinth into which they now must realise they have penetrated. A further difficulty is that not only have we not had the presence of the Cabinet Ministers concerned but the two Under-Secretaries who have been in charge have not had the assistance of any of the Law Officers. We have found ourselves over and over again in the position—it happened again just now in your hearing, Mr. Irving—of having to guess, with the good will and assistance, but still the unqualified assistance, of the Under-Secretaries, at vital issues of legal interpretation which affected the argument and affected the decision upon the Amendments.

Mr. Mendelson: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the point about colleagues whose absence we all deplore, will he not also refer to the right hon. Members for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), who are equally absent and who could be very helpful to us, because they have been in on the bargaining all the time?

Mr. Powell: There is, however, this difference, that their names are not on the back of the Bill. The result of this has been that more than once we have actually and admittedly been mis-advised


by Ministers and a correction has had to be made.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not referring to his interpretation of the ejusdem generis rule. Further, as regards Clause 4(2), that is not a matter which we can discuss on this Amendment.

Mr. Powell: No. I was referring to the fact that, at an earlier stage, the hon. Gentleman had to retract an interpretation which he had given of the applicability of the conditions in Clause 4(2)(b) and had to admit that it had been ill-considered. I suspect that, before the deliberations of this Committee are much further advanced, we shall find that other opinions which have been put to us upon the interpretation of wording in this Clause may similarly have to be revised. Therefore, although we should wish to share in the view of the other Under-Secretary of State that the absence of senior Ministers is due to their supreme confidence—I noted his words—in their juniors, I wonder whether the affliction of hubris did not for a moment beset the hon. Gentleman with its usual consequence that it tends to be followed by ate in the form of punishment. However, before ate overtakes me at your hands, Mr. Irving, I shall come from those preliminary remarks to the second of the two classes from whom the Clause removes the necessity of fulfilling the qualifications for membership of a voting House which have been thought necessary in the Clauses which we have so far added to the Bill.
It is important to be clear on what the effect of this Amendment would be. It would not disable law lords from being Members of the voting House, of the House of 230-plus, and to that extent the general question whether law lords as such ought to be members of that voting House does not fall strictly within the ambit of the Amendment. But we are obliged to consider whether it is right that the two qualifications, age and attendance—age not more than 72 by the end of a Parliament, and attendance at one-third of potential sittings—ought to be lifted en bloc for the holders of judicial offices as defined in subsection (1)(b).

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: There is another disqualification, that of

failing to make a voting declaration within one month, and negligence in that respect.

Mr. Powell: On a later Amendment which, I think, you have selected, Mr. Irving, there will be opportunity to discuss the making of the voting declaration, and it may well be that my hon. Friend will be able in that connection to hear and take part in discussion on that point. But I shall take successively these two qualifications, age and attendance, and consider what may be the justification for not insisting upon them where law lords, as here defined, are involved.
I take, first, the qualification of age. In order to form a judgment upon this, we must decide what is the reason why the age qualification is otherwise insisted upon. Here, there is a serious conflict of evidence which has so far not been resolved. The Solicitor-General, on 25th and 26th February, gave it to be understood on more than one occasion that the age limit here had the same significance as the age limit in other professions and circumstances, namely, that it was the age at which, broadly, and upon average, a person might be regarded as having ceased to be fit for the full performance of the duties involved. For example, on 25th February, when the Solicitor-General was interrupted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch), who asked:
Am I to understand that the age of 72 has nothing to do with a judgment about the competence of an average person of that age and whether he is capable of doing his job, but that mathematical juggling has produced a certain effect?"—
the Solicitor-General replied:
I do not accept that account. Competence at a particular age was taken into account."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1968; Vol. 778, c. 1670.]
So there we have the Solicitor-General stating that the reason, or at any rate one of the reasons, for the age limit of 72 is suitability, is competence at that age. Again, on 26th February, the same hon. and learned Gentleman said:
The intention is to set an age which will not exclude a large number of active and potentially valuable Members …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 1781.]
In other words, one view of the reason for the age qualification is that it is


intended to ensure that peers do not remain Members of the voting House beyond a point at which, upon average, they would be fully competent and fit to perform what are expected to be the duties. That is one view. But there is an entirely different view, namely, as my right hon. Friend put it, that this has been a matter of mathematical contrivance. Speaking in another place on 21st November last year, the noble Lord, the Lord Privy Seal, made clear that his view was that that was the reason for the age of 72. He said:
In those studies we examined a number of variables and considered such ages as 80, 75 and 72; and 72 was indicated by those studies. It is arranged"—
and so on.
The purpose of this is to 'bunch' these retirements so that, in the event of a change of Government, the numbers can be adjusted without too great difficulty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 21st November, 1968; Vol. 297, c. 1086.]

The Chairman: Order. I am having a little difficulty in seeing how the right hon. Gentleman relates what he is saying to the Amendment. He may well come to it, but it seems to me that he is a little slow in doing so.

Mr. Powell: May I explain, Mr. Irving? We are concerned with an Amendment which would remove a provision under which a law lord, unlike other lords, can be a Member of the voting House although over the retiring age of 72. We cannot come to a conclusion on the validity of that provision without knowing why the retiring age of 72 is there, since, until we know why it is there, we cannot know whether it ought to apply to a law lord. I am sorry if I had not previously made that clear in my argument, but I apprehend that it must be relevant to the decision which the Committee has to take.
The alternative interpretation of the retiring age of 72 is the one which was put forward in another place, as I have explained, by the noble Lord, the Lord Privy Seal, who made quite clear that they had not looked at the ages of 80, 75 and 72 from the point of view of physical or mental fitness but had looked at them on mathematical grounds to see what the results of those alternative ages would be upon the size of the House, Parliament by Parliament. I seek now to apply the two alternative explanations of the retirement

age to the question which the Amendment poses.
I quite see that it could be argued that, if the retirement age of 72 is intended merely to have a mathematical effect, is intended merely to restrain the total size of the working House within given limits, in that case it has no relevance to the law lords since the law lords, as the Under-Secretary of State was reminded by his hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), do not count in the little party sum which adds up to 230. Therefore, the extent to which their numbers may vary, may wax and wane with the successive Parliaments, will not be a matter of concern, since they are outside the 230 calculation. I give that to the hon. Gentleman.
If, on the other hand, we accept the explanation which was given by the Solicitor-General, namely, that the age of 72 is chosen with a view to fitness to participate in the work of the working Chamber, then I do not see how this provision can be justified, for we are then presented—and I will not go over the ground traversed so effectively by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter)—with the monstrous proposition that a law Lord as such is more likely to be a fit Member to take part in the work of the Upper House than any other kind of Lord.
However, the fact remains that neither age nor the quality of a law lord has been taken into account by the Government in their calculations. Their detailed calculations are based upon the table on page 5 of the White Paper, which has been referred to more than once in these debates in which we find that the law lords are included, and so are peers over the age of 72. So that in applying their model of the House of 230 which was to exclude law lords, the Government inadvertently utilised a table for their detailed calculations which had no retirement qualification, which included lords over 72 and also included law lords, for they are included in the detailed figure in the left-hand column on page 5. So, however we view the age qualification, I cannot agree that there is a valid reason why that qualification should be applied to other lords but not, as a matter of principle, to law lords as here defined.
I then come to the attendance qualification. I can quite see the justification for eliminating it in the case of the other class of person, the Ministers, with whom we were dealing previously, because obviously it is part of their business to attend in the House of Lords, and at any rate it would be supererogatory to insist on an attendance qualification on their part. But why, for the purposes of general as opposed to judicial business, should a law lord be entitled to take a full part in the work of the Upper House with a much lower attendance than any other kind of lord? I agree that we should do nothing to disable him from taking part in the judicial business, but that can be easily met by making such a special provision for judicial business as comes later in the Clause. But where we are concerned with the general business of the other House I see no reason why a law lord who can put in an attendance, or chooses to put in an attendance, only for one-eighth or one-tenth of the time should be put in this specially privileged position.
5.15 p.m.
The Minister referred to the public business provision in Clause 4. But it seemed to me that the argument cut in exactly the opposite direction. We think it necessary in Clause 4 that a special leave of absence should be given if a peer is to continue to qualify as a voting peer despite not putting in one-third of the attendance on grounds of public business. Why should we ipso facto exempt from that requirement to obtain leave of absence a lord because he is a law lord? If the circumstances arise which the Minister gave, there will be no possible difficulty in a law lord's demonstrating that it was because of public business that he was unable to be present. What could be more simple than for him to comply with exactly the same requirement as any other lord to obtain leave of absence for that business? So, we are left with a distinction which is invidious and unjustified, whether we look at the age qualification or at the attendance qualification.
Now I want to come to the second of the Amendments, which relates to line 7 on page 5. A further distinction between two classes of person arises in this subsection

(3) as drafted. The subsection refers to Lords of Appeal. Lords of Appeal are to the law lords as defined in subsection (1)(b) as the greater is to the less, that is to say, all who are in subsection (1)(b) are Lords of Appeal, but not all Lords of Appeal fall within subsection (1)(b), and the difference between the two, the residue when we subtract those who are provided for in subsection (1) from those in subsection (3), are the former holders of judicial offices who are still Lords of Appeal. It is, therefore, the former holders of judicial office who are specially and effectively the subject of subsection (3), which enables them to qualify as voting peers only for judicial business.
So we set up yet another distinction, a distinction between one set of Lords of Appeal and another set of Lords of Appeal. Those Lords of Appeal who are former occupiers of high judicial office do not have the same privilege as the other law lords. They must try to qualify as voting peers like anyone else, except for judicial business. I apprehend that it will be virtually impossible for them to qualify in the ordinary manner, since they will in any case almost always be beyond the retirement age. But that renders all the more invidious the distinction which is here drawn.
In paragraph 61 of the White Paper the Government explain why they are so keen that the law lords should in any case be Members of the new House. They say:
Their knowledge and experience should continue to be fully available to the reformed House for its non-judicial business …
That is the view of the Government, that the knowledge and experience of any law lord as such at present and in the future should be able to be fully available to the reformed House for its non-judicial business, its general business. If that is the ground, then what reason is there for supposing that the knowledge and experience of those Lords of Appeal who are ex-holders of high judicial office will not be equally valuable to the House? If the Government say, "Oh well, they can give their advice, but they do not need to vote", then so say we in relation to the Lords of Appeal generally. So, one way or the other, it is


unjustified to make this distinction between the Lords of Appeal in toto and the law lords as defined more narrowly in subsection 1(b).
When we put down our Amendment, my right hon. Friend and I by no means disagreed with Amendment No. 31. We hold, and I believe that the Committee generally holds so far as one can judge from the debate, that this creation of a privileged class is unjustified and that it arises, like so much else, out of this clockwork construction upon which the Government are engaged. But he and I say that if the Government are going to insist on having this unjustified privileged class, they should include in it all who are Lords of Appeal.
That brings me finally to what is again the main case here—whether and why a kind of superior class ought to be created from the outset in the new House. It is in that connection that it is relevant to debate whether or not, if we are making a small House of 230 Members, law lords as such should be Members at all. This is a matter which, in that context, is very doubtful. If it is debatable in that context, surely it is much more debatable, surely it is very hard to assert, that law lords as such should have a preferential right over everyone else except Ministers to be permanent, automatic Members of the Upper House.
The question arises of how this happened. How is it that a provision so difficult to explain let alone justify comes to be in the Bill? I am afraid I believe that this is one of the inducements offered to another place to make this Bill acceptable. After all, law lords are very influential Members of another place. They were an interest that had to be consulted and I believe that what happened was that those who concocted this scheme said to them, "Do not worry. We will make it all right for you. Never mind about age or attendance qualifications. It will be all right for you. Automatically you shall have a place in the new Chamber, so please stand out of the way, keep off the grass and let the thing go through".
This is in the nature of the inducements which we have discovered as we have examined one part of this Bill after another and by which—I must be careful of the expression I use here; I was

about to use the word "suborned" but I take it back before it is uttered—Members of another place were induced to give an assent to these proposals, which I believe that this Committee is in no way minded to match.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I promised to seek to intervene following the remarks of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South West (Mr. Powell). I somewhat anticipated his argument but I am afraid that he was not quite as elaborate as I had thought he might be on this occasion. After very lengthy and, if I may say so, magniloquent complaining which was liberally laced with chastisements of my hon. Friend and myself as Under-Secretaries of State at the Home Office, he developed the argument that there was here a fundamental inconsistency between the provisions which made it necessary for all other peers, apart from Ministers under Clause 5, to lose their voting rights at the age of 72 and that this therefore was a fundamental and glaring inconsistency.
I am sure that this is linked with the right hon. Gentleman's failure, as he admitted, to understand why subsection (3) is in the Bill at all. I am sure that there are many hon. Members who appreciate the very great services given by retired Lords of Appeal in Ordinary when occasion so demands, when they are invited by the Lord Chancellor to sit upon judicial matters—normally when illness occurs among their legal brethren who are still actively engaged as Lords of Appeal in Ordinary.
This process has been going on a very long time and it would seriously affect the judicial process if it were now to be discontinued. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that, in these circumstances, it is very proper for the Lord Chancellor to turn to these gentlemen, who are skilled and experienced and who are so able to discharge their functions in that respect, and to agree that they should exercise their voting rights.
But I think that the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's argument concerning inconsistency is that, in so far as it is right and proper to have an age limit with regard to a working House—something which the Committee has already disposed of—the argument in favour of that


is the general argument, and there are obviously many people, wherever we set the age limit, who will be clear exceptions to such a general rule.
This subsection deals not with a general exemption but with exemption in specific cases—that is, with exemption in cases in which the Lord Chancellor turns to a retired Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and say, "I am aware that you are able to carry out your functions. So-and-so is ill and we should be grateful if you would help us out". That, in my submission, is in no way inconsistent with the general rule because it is a specific exemption which turns upon the specific circumstances of the case.

Mr. Michael Foot: I hope that my hon. Friend will not look at me too clearly when making his points because I have not had an opportunity to put my views to the Committee on the subject as yet and I trust that he will extend to me precisely the same courtesy as that which he has given to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell).
My hon. Friend said in his previous speech that he would prefer to speak earlier in the debate in order to be able to speak later and to reply to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman. I think that it would be an invidious arrangement if there were any suggestion by my hon. Friend that he would accord facilities to the Opposition which are not being accorded to his own side. I invite him seriously to consider that, if he wishes to see the smoothest possible progress of the Committee, he should take what I have said into account.

Mr. Morgan: If one wished to parody a rather well-known phrase, one might ask, "Who is my opposition?" Be that as it may, it is the rôle of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) to ask questions rather than answer them. I am sure that he has a claim on many grounds to special recognition and status in this Committee, but the only reason I replied particularly to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West was that Amendment No. 236 stands in his name. What happens later in the debate is not a matter for me.

Mr. Michael Foot: I am not asking for special rights. I am asking for exactly the same courtesy which my hon. Friend, quite properly, extended to the right hon. Gentleman. I invite him to consider that.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. John Lee: On a point of order. This problem has arisen more than once. At various times, you, Mr. Irving, and other occupants of the Chair have been asked whether it was appropriate for the Closure to be moved, and you and your colleagues have ruled that it was not a matter for the Chair. The point is now being put to the Minister in charge of the Bill, and he says that it is not a matter for him. What we wish to know is for whom it is a matter if it is not a matter for the Chair.

The Chairman: The Chair can answer only for the Chair.

Mr. Morgan: The rules of order are obvious to all in this respect; it is for any hon. Member if he so wishes to move the Closure, but it lies only with the Chair whether to accept it. I am sure that nothing I say can in any way alter that rule.

Mr. John Mendelson: rose—

Mr. Morgan: The effect of the Amendment——

Mr. Mendelson: On a point of order. You will remember, Mr. Irving, that I addressed you on a point of order a short time ago when it had first been intimated by the Under-Secretary that he would speak early and anticipate the arguments of hon. Members who had not yet spoken. More recently, he said that he had abandoned that policy and would listen to what other hon. Members had to say. Surely it is for you to protect the rights of Members to be heard.

The Chairman: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Mendelson: Further to that point of order. I must press this——

The Chairman: Order. I have ruled that the hon. Gentleman is not addressing me on a point of order. It is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Mendelson: On this point of order. I have not in any way——

The Chairman: Order. I ruled that in addressing me the hon. Gentleman was not addressing me on a point of order, that it was not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Mendelson: Further——

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman may not address me on a point I have dealt with.

Mr. Mendelson: On a new point of order concerning this matter. You and I, Mr. Irving, and many other hon. Members share the experience of Committees, both of the whole House and Standing Committees, of the established tradition that either the Chairman or the Minister in charge should deal with such questions. We must have one or the other.

The Chairman: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. John Smith: On a point of order. It is the Deputy Leader of the House who should protect us, but as in another capacity he keeps moving the Closure, would it not be possible——

The Chairman: Order. This is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Morgan: I am sure that the Committee appreciates that the effect of the Amendment would be to allow retired Lords of Appeal in Ordinary to exercise a vote for the rest of their lives. We all appreciate the absolute sincerity of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in his absolute opposition to the Bill. After all, we well know the adulation in which he holds the idea of government by an aristocratic oligarchy. But what has surprised me and many other hon. Members is that he has been so absolutely selective.
He mentioned distinctions which he thought invidious and unjustified, but why should it be the privilege of a law lord more than any other lord to exercise a right to vote in the other place for the rest of his days? There is no provision in the Bill for peers to exercise

a vote all their lives. I therefore respectfully put it to the Committee that although the arguments put forward by the right hon. Gentleman were interesting——

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order. May I respectfully point out to you, Mr. Irving, that it has always been agreed by Chairmen, including yourself, that you have a duty to keep a balance between the two sides of the Committee? In the last 60 minutes we have had the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) speaking from the Opposition side of the Committee, then we had the Under-Secretary and then we had another right hon. Gentleman, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), from the Opposition side of the Committee. This is absolutely unprecedented.

The Chairman: The hon. Member must not challenge the selection by the Chair.

Mr. Morgan: I recollect an occasion when for two hours and 20 minutes all the speeches about the Bill came from my side of the Committee.

The Chairman: I hope that the Under-Secretary will not proceed in that vein.

Mr. Heffer: Because it will happen again.

Mr. Morgan: I am sure that the Committee appreciates that the community needs the services of retired law lords; hence the justification of and the necessity for subsection (3). It is right that when they are called upon to act, they should exercise the right to vote, but it would be invidious if, on account of the fact that they were ex-Lords of Appeal in Ordinary or retired Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, they were to have the right to vote when not carrying out judicial business.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Charles Grey (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): Mr. Charles Grey (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

Division No. 148.]
AYES
[5.38 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Anderson, Donald
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Moyle, Roland


Archer, Peter
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Oakes, Gordon


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hannan, William
Ogden, Eric


Beaney, Alan
Harper, Joseph
O'Malley, Brian


Bishop, E. S.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Boyden, James
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Palmer, Arthur


Bradley, Tom
Haseldine, Norman
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hazell, Bert
Pavitt, Laurence


Brooks, Edwin
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hooley, Frank
Pentland, Norman


Buchan, Norman
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Probert, Arthur


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Howie, W.
Rees, Merlyn


Cant, R. B.
Hoy, James
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Carmichael, Neil
Huckfield, Leslie
Richard, Ivor


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Chapman, Donald
Hunter, Adam
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Coe, Denis
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Concannon, J. D.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dalyell, Tam
Judd, Frank
Skeffington, Arthur


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Kelley, Richard
Small, William


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Kenyon, Clifford
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Lawson, George
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Taverne, Dick


Delargy, Hugh
Lipton, Marcus
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Dobson, Ray
Loughlin, Charles
Tinn, James


Doig, Peter
Luard, Evan
Urwin, T. W.


Dunnett, Jack
Lubbock, Eric
Varley, Eric G.


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Eadie, Alex
McBride, Neil
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McCann, John
Wallace, George


Ellis, John
MacColl, James
Watkins, David (Consett)


Ennals, David
Macdonald, A. H.
Wellbeloved, James


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'ham, Yardley)
Mackintosh, John P.
Whitaker, Ben


Fernyhough, E.
Maclennan, Robert
White, Mr. Eirene


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Whitlock, William


Ford, Ben
MacPherson Malcolm
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Forrester, John
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Freeson, Reginald
Manuel, Archie
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Gardner, Tony
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Winnick, David


Garrett, W. E.
Millan, Bruce



Ginsburg, David
Miller, Dr. M. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Moonman, Eric
Mr. Charles R. Morris and


Gregory, Arnold
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)





NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Farr, John
Murton, Oscar


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Bell, Ronald
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Neave, Airey


Biffen, John
Glover, Sir Douglas
Newens, Stan


Biggs-Davison, John
Goodhart, Philip
Norwood, Christopher


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Goodhew, Victor
Onslow, Cranley


Black, Sir Cyril
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Body, Richard
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Booth, Albert
Heffer, Eric S.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hooson, Emlyn
Park, Trevor


Brewis, John
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Percival, Ian


Bruce-Gardyne J.
Iremonger T. L.
Perry, George H. (Nottinghom, S.)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras)
Peyton, John


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Corfield, F. V.
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Prior, J. M. L.


Costain, A. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Pym, Francis


Crouch, David
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Dean, Paul
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dickens, James
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Ridsdale, Julian


Drayson, G. B.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Driberg, Tom
McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Russell, Sir Ronald


Eden, Sir John
Maude, Angus
Sheldon, Robert


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mendelson, J. J.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Monro, Hector
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Eyre, Reginald
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)

The Committee divided: Ayes 142, Noes 84.

Stodart, Anthony
Wiggin, J.



Temple, John M.
Williams, Donald (Dudley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Mr. Michael Foot and


Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Mr. John Lee.


Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Wright, Esmond

Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—

Division No. 149.]
AYES
[5.45 p.m.


Bell, Ronald
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Biffen, John
Heffer, Eric S.
Park, Trevor


Biggs-Davison, John
Hooson, Emlyn
Percival, Ian


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Black, Sir Cyril
Iremonger, T. L.
Peyton, John


Body, Richard
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Ridsdale, Julian


Brewis, John
Kimball, Marcus
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bullus, Sir Eric
Lubbock, Eric
Sheldon, Robert


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Corfield, F. V.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Smith, John (London &amp; Westminster)


Costain, A. P.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Maude, Angus
Stodart, Anthony


Dean, Paul
Mendelson, J. J.
Temple, John M.


Drayson, G. B.
Monro, Hector
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Driberg, Tom
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


English, Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Whitaker, Ben


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Murton, Oscar
Wiggin, J.


Farr, John
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Neave, Airey
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Newens, Stan
Wright, Esmond


Glover, Sir Douglas
Norwood, Christopher



Goodhart, Philip
Onslow, Cranley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Goodhew Victor
Orme, Stanley
Mr. Michael Foot and


Grimmond, Rt. Hn. J.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. John Lee.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Gregory, Arnold
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Anderson, Donald
Grey, Charles (Durham)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Archer, Peter
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Beaney, Alan
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Manuel, Archie


Bishop, E. S.
Hannan, William
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Boyden, James
Harper, Joseph
Millan, Bruce


Bradley, Tom
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Brooks, Edwin
Haseldine, Norman
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Brown, Bob) (N'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hazell, Bert
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Buchan, Norman
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hooley, Frank
Moyle, Roland


Cant, R. B.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oakes, Gordon


Carmichael, Neil
Hoy, James
Ogden, Eric


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Huckfield, Leslie
O'Malley, Brian


Chapman, Donald
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Coe, Denis
Hunter, Adam
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hynd, John
Pavitt, Laurence


Dalyell, Tam
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Probert, Arthur


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rees, Merlyn


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Dobson, Ray
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Dunnett, Jack
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Kenyon, Clifford
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Eadie, Alex




Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lawson, George
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Ellis, John
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Ennals, David
Lipton, Marcus
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Loughlin, Charles
Skeffington, Arthur


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Luard, Evan
Small, William


Fernyhough, E.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McBride, Neil
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Ford, Ben
McCann, John
Taverne, Dick


Forrester, John
MacColl, James
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Macdonald, A. H.
Tinn, James


Freeson, Reginald
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Urwin, T. W.


Garrett, W. E.
Mackie, John
Varley, Eric G.


Ginsburg, David
Mackintosh, John P.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Maclennan, Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

The Committee divided: Ayes, 74, Noes 133.

Wallace, George
Whitlock, William



Watkins, David (Consett)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wellbeloved, James
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Mr. J. D. Concannon and


Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.


White, Mrs. Eirene

Mr. Hugh Fraser: On a point of order. The Committee has been genuinely distressed by the discourtesy shown to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). It is a breach of courtesy by the Minister that he should reply to my right hon. Friend and not give an opportunity to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale to make his speech to which there should have been a reply. This makes it difficult for the Committee to conduct itself in a good tempered way.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman may be right, but it is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: This arises on the Closure; it is a very important point. It has been made perfectly clear that the Minister is not——

The Chairman: Order. I cannot discuss now the question of the Closure.

Mr. Peyton: On a point of order. Will you, Mr. Irving, indicate to that body of men who constitute the Government Whips that when they move the Closure, when they try to administer the humane killer to the discussion, they should do so in audible tones and should not be overcome by their well-justified and no doubt profound sense of shame? They should stand up like men and commit their horrid crimes in the full public gaze so that they can be heard.

The Chairman: Happily, this is not a point for the Chair.

Mr. Powell: I beg to move Amendment No. 235, in page 5, line 1, leave out from 'session' to end of line 3.
The words which I am proposing to leave out are these:
or within such extended period as the House may for special reasons allow.
There is raised by the Amendment both a narrower point and one which is of wider significance. The words which I am proposing should be left out do not occur here for the first time. Precisely the same words occur in Clause 3(4) at the end of the subsection, where again we read the words:

or such extended period as the House may for special reasons allow.
In that context when that Clause was before the Committee, I raised with the hon, and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General the question of what interpretation should be put upon this phrase. It seemed to me that there were two alternative interpretations. One was that the House, that is the reformed House of Lords, could take the view that there were special reasons prevailing at that time. It might decide that there were special reasons relevant to the circumstances of the time for allowing the voting declaration to be made out of time. Alternatively, the phrase might mean that the House was to apply itself to special reasons relating to the particular person who was attempting to put in a voting declaration. In other words, is this provision ad hominem, special to the persons or is it of wider application? What is the nature of the discretion which this phrase leaves to the House of Lords?

[Mr. HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair]

The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General, thorough and courteous as always, took up my query in the debate on 26th February and replied to me as follows:
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) earlier in the course of our consideration of the Clause asked me whether the extended period was intended to be of general application or a concept to be applied, by contrast, ad hominem. I have already communicated with him about this matter …
Perhaps I should say, Mr. Gourlay, that this was in no sense a secret or private communication which the Solicitor-General had with me. It was limited simply to a courteous intimation by the hon. and learned Gentleman of his view and that he would state that view in Committee. He went on to say:
… but I venture to offer to him and to the committee the view that, on a true construction, the provision is intended to be ad hominem and has that effect."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 1818.]
We know at least what were the intentions of the Government, presumably, in


Clause 3 and what they are in Clause 5; that the special reasons for which the new House of Lords may allow a voting declaration after a longer period than would otherwise be the case are special reasons referring to that particular applicant. But, although we know the Government's intentions, it does not follow that they have carried them out. As a layman, I confess that I see nothing in the expression "for special reasons" which ensures that those special reasons are related to the circumstances of the applicant.

6.0 p.m.

Since the intention of the Government is clear, I think that it would have been at least advisable for the draftsman to make doubly sure. There could have been no objection to inserting words which would render it quite clear what the intention was. I hope, therefore, that note will be taken of this narrower point that I am making. I presume that the intention is the same in both Clauses, and I think that, before we leave this stage, the Government should introduce such words as will make it clear that the special reasons are special reasons relating to that applicant.

After all, we are not in the same position as a Committee which is passing ordinary legislation. When we are passing the great mass of legislation and we are advised by a Law Officer of the Crown that, on his interpretation, a given meaning attaches to a Clause, unless there are strong reasons to the contrary, generally we will rest satisfied. We know that it will be a court of law which will interpret the application of whatever Clause may be under consideration, that, having once interpreted it, the courts ever after will be bound by precedent, and that if, thereafter, that interpretation is to be altered, it will be necessary to come back to this House for new legislation.

That is not the position with this Bill. In effect, it is law which the new House of Lords will itself administer. If the new House of Lords takes a different view from that which the Solicitor-General has put to the Committee, and if the House of Lords takes a different view of the interpretation on one occasion from that which it takes on another, I see very little possibility of a recourse to the courts of law. This is probably a matter of great legal difficulty, but I am doubtful how

recourse could be had to the courts of law if the House of Lords were to admit a voting declaration on one interpretation of these words, that being a different interpretation from that given to this Committee in passing the Clause.

In connection with this Bill, therefore, we are under a special obligation to make assurance doubly sure and to make certain that the meaning and intention conveyed to this Committee are so unambiguously spelt out on the face of the Clause that there cannot be any dubiety if and when it comes to be applied by another House, and that there cannot be any question of another House first interpreting it in one sense and then in another.

In this matter, I assume that the House of Lords would not necessarily be bound by its own precedent. I believe that it is not even bound by its own precedent when it is engaged on judicial business. I apprehend that certainly it would not be bound by its own precedent on the interpretation which it gave to this expression in admitting or not admitting a voting declaration from one of its Members.

I hope that the Government will see the necessity of writing words into this Clause which will express the intention on the face of it. I suggest that they might say
… for special reasons relating to the circumstances of the applicant",
or the like.

That it what I have to say upon the narrower issue raised by these words. It is not unusual to express a request for clarification by moving to leave out words. In terms of a request, I ask that assurance should be made doubly sure by any necessary Amendment.

Now I come to the larger matter which the Amendment raises. I drew attention to the fact that this formula had occurred before in the context of a voting declaration. In Clause 3(4), we have the provision that, after a peer has received a writ summoning him to Parliament, he has a month in which to decide whether or not to deposit a voting declaration. He is given a month after receipt of the writ, subject to this let-out phrase:
… or such extended period as the House may for special reasons allow.
"That is a provision applicable to peers generally, and it runs from the date of


the issue of the writ for the particular Parliament.

Here we are dealing with a different situation which relates to ex-Ministers or ex-law lords as defined in subsection (1)(b). In order not to weary the Committee, I will take only one of those cases, because both raise the same point.

We have debated already the preceding provisions of this Clause in connection with the first Amendment which was called, but I apprehend that we shall need to consider them more at large when we come to decide whether the Clause should be added to the Bill. Dealing with the case of ex-Ministers, under those preceding provisions, if a peer is a Minister he does not need to put in a voting declaration. He is a voting peer, he is one of the 230 Members of the working House, by virtue of being a Minister. But Ministerial office does not last for ever. It does not even last for ever during the tenure of the same Administration or during the course of one Parliament. There are reshuffles. It can happen that the most blameless and efficient member of an Administration can be, as that cruel, brief word has it, "dropped".

We are now dealing with the fate of Ministerial peers who are axed, dropped, reshuffled, or however in our Parliamentary argot we may prefer to describe it. It is the predicament of a peer who has just ceased to be a Minister to which this subsection relates.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Perhaps I might remind the right hon. Gentleman that that traumatic experience does not happen only to members of the Government but to members of the Shadow Cabinet.

Mr. Powell: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to think that I am not willing to enter with him into a discussion of the consequences there, too, but I do not believe that they are germane to the provisions of subsection (2). That is the only reason why I decline to enter into judgment upon that subject with the hon. Gentleman.
So we come back to the subsection and find ourselves contemplating the sad, though not necessarily sad—it may be joyous, and in the case of this Administration I think it would be joyous—situation of a peer who has just ceased to be

a Minister. He is lucky compared with others. He continues to be qualified as a voting peer to the end of that current Session. That gives him time for consideration which might, theoretically, be anything up to 12 months or more. Anyway, it is likely to be of considerable duration. He is not just pitched out of the voting House there and then; he remains a member to the end of the Session.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: A cooling-off period.

Mr. Powell: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that happy intervention. We might describe this as a cooling-off period. Indeed, if the Bill had been so drafted that this subsection was a separate Clause—I know from experience how convenient it is to include as many provisions as possible in one Clause, and thus minimise the number of occasions for debate on Clause stand part—"Cooling-off period" would be a very suitable marginal annotation and title.
Not only does such a peer remain a qualified member of the voting House until the end of the Session; he still has the Recess afterwards and a month after the beginning of the next Session. So he is on clover, as it were, compared with any ordinary peer who has just received a writ and has to make up his mind, subject to the discretion of the House, within one month from that date.

Mr. John Lee: Not only are these provisions included, but, as it were, on the other side of the coin the Bill is silent about the position of a Minister who resigns or is dismissed and then is subsequently reappointed. We do not know whether this abrogates the need for a special reason or whether he would subsequently need another leave of absence, another exeat, if there were a subsequent resignation.

Mr. Powell: That is great fun, too, though I am not sure it is not covered by—my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) says subsection (2,a). I had been looking at subsection (2,b), but (2,a) and (2,b) between them should deal with the case proposed by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee).

Sir D. Glover: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend realises


that these Ministers, contrary to everybody else, keep their voting rights for the remainder of a Session and that in fact upsets the balance. It means that any Prime Minister could shuffle, to use my right hon. Friend's expression, 15 new non-voting peers in and the others remain voting. Therefore, the whole balance has gone up the pole.

Mr. Powell: There is a proverb, which in Latin would be somewhat lengthy to try the patience of the Committee, but which says something about people who speak our own ideas before we get to speaking them ourselves. That, indeed, is what my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) has done. With his customary penetration he has gone right to the underlying essential point here and thus anticipated me. But, with his leave, I should like to come to that presently because I am still concerned with the individual ex-Minister peer deciding whether to put in a voting declaration.
My point is that he is in a different situation from that which arises where this latitude was previously allowed in Clause 3(4). There it was a month and done: writ, a month's grace, and after that dependence upon the special allowance of the House. In the case of the ex-Minister there is the rest of that Session, the interval between that Session and the next, and a month after the beginning of the next Session. So we are really putting these ex-Ministerial peers in an advantageous situation compared with their colleagues.
6.15 p.m.
It may be that the theoretical case will be posed: that there could be a reshuffle just before the beginning of a Session. I agree that in that case the position of the ex-Ministerial peer would approximate to the situation of the peer covered by Clause 3. Nevertheless, I submit that, once again, we are giving altogether too much latitude—and we have no knowledge how it will be exercised—to the other House in regard to ex-ministerial peers.
Apart from the drafting point which I made earlier, we have no idea what individual grounds another place might take into account. We have no idea what sort of period it might envisage.

Is it just a few days after the month's grace? If someone has been away for a year on a voyage round the world, will it be able to say—I imagine that it will—"That is all right, he can still put it in"? I do not believe that this is a justifiable allowance in the case of these ex-ministerial peers.
I now come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk. From the beginning, the excuse for this exercise on which we are engaged is that it will enable us to construct a delicately balanced House which would neither be able to oppose too much nor too little—the House of 230 with the sort of composition set out in paragraph 48 of the White Paper.
I want the Committee to consider the situation that would arise following a Government reshuffle involving a number of Ministers in the upper House. Let us assume that the Ministers in the upper House have been on the Government's ration and that half a dozen have gone—one senior Minister, perhaps, and five junior Ministers. That is not unknown in Parliamentary experience. They are replaced in the House of Lords by a different senior Minister and junior Ministers who may not necessarily already be members of the voting House. It might well be inconvenient that they should be. So far, at best, we are all quits. If they were all members of the voting House already there has been no increase in the Government's ration.
But what about the ex-Ministers? They are in the situation to which this part of the Clause relates. They are men with time on their hands. They are possibly somewhat discontented men, ripe for mischief, desiring to be employed, desiring to take an active part in the work of the House to which they belong and in which, as Ministers, they have been acting. They will, quite probably, sooner or later put in their voting declarations. The result will be that there will automatically be that much addition to the Government's ration. Immediately, this beautifully contrived balance is upset. So the simplest provision for exempting Ministers from the general qualifications for being voting peers, when we follow it through, we find in the end drives a coach and horses, or perhaps a coach and pair, through the scheme which is


the alleged justification for what we are doing.
On grounds of drafting, on grounds of fairness as between one peer and another, and on grounds of the absurd result of an attempt to contrive in this way the working of the House of Lords with a specific balance, I believe that we should mark these three matters by leaving these words out of the Clause until something more sensible can be put into their place.

Mr. Michael Foot: The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has shown quite convincingly that there are again large questions of principle involved in the Amendment, and I propose to come to some of those matters in a moment.
I should like, first, to refer to matters that we discussed on the previous Amendment. I know that it would be improper to debate them, but the previous Amendments are connected with this Amendment in the sense that the two categories that we have discussed in the previous Amendments, the Ministers and the law lords, are those who have the benefit from this Clause which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to remove, and therefore in that sense I believe that reference to some of the things that were said—of course, not recapitulation of the whole debate—is in order.
Had I been able to catch the eye of the Chair earlier I was proposing to say that the two Ministers who have dealt with this matter from the Government Front Bench—and I say this in, I hope, no patronising sense—have done so in the most courteous manner. I think that they have sought to reply to all the questions which have been raised, and I think that we owe them a great deal of gratitude in that respect. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that their courtesy has increased in almost exact proportion to the invalidity of their arguments. When we finally see them enraged we shall know that they are on a strong point. So far they have not got to that situation.
I suggest that to enable the proceedings of the Committee to be conducted in the manner that we all desire Ministers should adopt the old-fashioned

custom that we have here, that there should be speeches from one side of the House and then from the other side. I do not know how this old custom grew up, but there is something to be said for it. It is an old custom, too, that Ministers have found it advisable over the years—and I dare say if we look back over 700 years we shall find this to be the case—to treat their own back benchers with at least the same courtesy as they extend to those on the opposite side. If we are not to have any diversions from the smooth progress of the Bill through the Committee I hope that Ministers will take that into account on future occasions.
Fortunately it has been arranged by our ancestors that there are many alternative methods of conducting business in this House, many alternative methods of discussing matters, not merely on the Bills that are before us. There are other methods by which legislation can be discussed and dealt with. I hope that Ministers will take that into account, and that no Minister will in future suggest that the time when he seeks to intervene in a debate has no influence on the course of the debate.
The status of the Minister on the Treasury Bench should govern the debate. The Minister, whether he is a Prime Minister, a Minister, a Secretary of State, or a Minister of State——

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. We are discussing Amendment No. 235 which deals with deleting certain words from Clause 5. I do not think that we are discussing the procedures of the Committee.

Mr. Foot: Mr. Gourlay, you are perfectly correct, and I leave the point which I hope I had made, but I trust that I shall never have to refer to it again.
I do not propose to deal with the lesser point to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. It is an important point, and I am sure that the Minister will give us an explanation about it.
I propose to deal with the larger question of principle which the right hon. Gentleman has raised. The further we proceed with the Bill, the more extraordinary is the revelation that we get. I invite all hon. Members to read carefully the Clause and the subsection that we are


discussing. If those who have not followed the Bill quite as closely as some of us have were to read the Clause they would be astounded at the meticulous nature of this provision.
Here we are setting up a second Chamber. There have been debates on the previous four Clauses, which I shall not recapitulate now. Here we are dealing with major matters covering the structure, nature, and size of that assembly, and on all these discussions we have come to the conclusion that the provisions in the Bill are extremely vague, that we cannot pin them down, that it is impossible to specify exactly what they mean. But when we come to this Clause and to this Amendment we discover that those who have drafted the Bill and organised it have been so meticulously careful in their arrangements that they have not merely made special provisions for protecting Ministers in the new Chamber that is to be established, they have not merely made special provisions for exempting them from attendance, they have not merely made special provisions to govern the way in which Ministers may vote, they have not merely made special provisions by which law lords will be able to be exempted from the provisions which apply to other people, they have not merely decided what is going to happen when those law lords are actually operating in the other place, but they have gone on to decide what is to happen to those law lords and what is to happen to those Ministers if by some misadventure they lose their jobs.
In fact, they have gone even further than that. Not merely have they made all those elaborate arrangements for ensuring that ex-Ministers shall have special privileges when they are Ministers, that is, privileges which distinguish them from the others in the other place, not merely have they arranged that law lords shall have advantages which are not distributed amongst the other lords, but they have decided that those persons shall have special advantages when they are pitched out. Over and above that, if by any chance the special privileges which they are to be accorded when they are pitched out are not satisfactory for them, there is some obscure arrangement, but an arrangement which is presumably meant to be advantageous to the

Ministers or to the law lords, to come to their assistance.
I make no comment upon the rest of their conduct, but this seems to me to be incredible for a Government whose foresight has not been infallible in dealing with the Bill. They have not foreseen exactly the nature of the discussions we might have. They have not foreseen exactly the timetable that we might have to execute to get the Bill. They have not foreseen some of the complications which some of us have sought to point out. I think that that would not be an exaggerated way of describing our debates. However contemptuous some of us may be of the debates which we have had, no one will say that all that we have raised has been foreseen, and therefore the Government cannot claim that in this Bill they have been able to foresee everything that might occur.
For a Government who have not been notable for their foresight to have gone into such detail to try to ensure that no injustice shall befall some future law lords, or some future Ministers, who might lose their office in another place is the most extraordinary event, the most extraordinary development, or feature, of the Bill that I have yet come across.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that it is possible that the plight of hon. Members who may lose their office is the only question about which Members of the Government are capable of thinking?

Mr. Foot: I should not like to resort to any such uncharitable explanation, but I intended to search for the explanation at a future point. I was not proposing merely to pose the problem and leave it in the air. I wanted to examine the question why we had reached this situation.
I do not think that anybody could contest my submission that this is an extraordinary state of affairs. It may be justifiable, but we have heard no justification so far. We do not know why we should be invited by the Government to consider these distant and elaborate complications and eventualities that might conceivably occur in some hypothetical future. It is like the architect setting out to build a house who says,


"I am very sorry; I cannot tell you how many rooms it will have, or what size it will be, or how we shall get the roof on, or how the place will be heated, but I can assure you that we have decided the precise shade of the wallpaper in the scullery and the colour of the lavatory seat". When we are faced with such an extraordinary phenomenon and are presented with a Bill of this nature it is natural that we should seek the explanation as the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said.
I am driven to the same conclusions—although I would hesitate to use such violent language—as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. He used the word "inducements" and the word "suborn"—although he withdrew that hastily. Again, for the benefit of hon. Members who may not have been in the Committee at the time, the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting something extremely serious, especially for one who weighs his language so carefully.
The word "inducements" is a very strong one. The suggestion was that precisely the people with whom we are dealing in the Amendment—the law lords—had entered into some deal with those who constructed the Clause and, in particular, the subsection. The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman—it is not mine; I shall say later whether I agree with it—was that in order to ease the passage of the Bill and to make it appeal more to Members of the other place certain discussions took place. I am merely spelling out the inference in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman.
Some discussions must have occurred between those acting on behalf of the Committee which drew up the White Paper and the law lords. According to the inference of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, the law lords suggested to the Committee, or the Committee suggested to the law lords—it is equally unsavoury, whichever way it may have occurred—that a deal should be done. Perhaps the law lords said, "All right, if you make sure that the whole thing is made extremely convenient for us, so that we do not have to go through all this degrading business of proving that we are voting peers. We must not be subjected to that." It may be that the law lords themselves suggested that the

best way to do this would be to insert a special Clause in the Bill which exempted them, or perhaps the Government or the Committee—acting also on behalf of the Opposition Front Bench—made the suggestion to the law lords.
That is what the right hon. Gentleman said. He said it in the debate on the previous Clause and he received no answer from the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I thought that I had answered the point and tendered to the Committee the view that the reason was that it was necessary for retiring Lords of Appeal in Ordinary to help out when illness occurred, and that this had happened on many occasions and was the natural explanation for the presence of subsection (3) in the Clause.

Mr. Foot: I believe that that referred to the position of the Lords of Appeal as compared with the other Lords. The reference of the right hon. Gentleman to inducements did not refer merely to the distinction he made between their Lordships in general and the Lords of Appeal. The question of inducements concerned the whole Clause. That may be a reinforcement of the argument. The right hon. Gentleman was saying that the main point that we were discussing on previous Amendments was the question why a privileged position was being given to the law lords—as to Ministers—that they should be able to vote even though their attendances did not come up to the necessary requirement.
The right hon. Gentleman was saying that the inducement offered to the law lords was that they should be exempted from what some of us regard as the indignities to which other lords are to be subjected.

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. We are not discussing Clauses in the Bill; we are discussing Amendment No. 235, which is to delete certain words from the Clause. Perhaps the hon. Member will direct his remarks to that Amendment.

Mr. Foot: I thought that I was directly doing so, Mr. Gourlay. I hope that I was. That was my intention. I am suggesting that this was part of the inducement offered to the law lords, in


addition to others. In order to discover how this addition was made we have to discover the original sum, and how this inducement was added to the others. It is surely proper for us to do this, so that we may have the whole matter in perspective. I have not adopted the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman that this was the way in which it was agreed, but I should be glad if any hon. Member can give me an alternative explanation.
I return to the point that I was making, namely, that the Minister made no reply whatsoever to the charge that inducements had been offered. The charge therefore stands. The charge should be answered. As I have said on many previous occasions, it should be answered, among others, by the Leaders of the Opposition. They should answer it partly because they must be aware of the discussions that took place. I want to discover how it is that we should have been presented with the precise subsection which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to delete. How is it that the House of Commons is called upon to agree to a Clause which will provide not merely for the way in which the House of Commons is to be constituted, and not merely for special favours for particular groups, but also that those favours shall continue long after they have served the purposes for which they were originally given.
We can argue that special favours should be given for Ministers in another place. If I had the chance, however, I should like to put the contrary argument.
One can argue that special favours and a privileged position should be given to law lords. I oppose that, but I was not able to oppose it then and I cannot recapitulate the argument. But I cannot see why, after these proposals have been forced through the Committee, we should now have to agree to two different forms of special favour.
I should be out of order if I directed my arguments primarily to the first part of subsection (2)(b), because that is not the part directly dealt with by the Amendment, but it is remarkable that, in addition to saying that the special voting rights of ex-Ministers and ex-law lords should be sustained for a period of the Session after they have left their offices, there may be a further period in which they will be granted these favours on

grounds which we do not understand and which no one has explained.
There is no explanation in the White Paper. Therefore, in the absence of any such explanations, we are driven back to the most unsavoury or sinister suggestions. The hon. Member for Woking suggested that the reason was a calculation of Ministers of the period in which they were most interested. He said that this had been put in by Ministers who thought that they might be affected by it. I do not believe that. That is to strain credulity much too far. But, somehow, this extraordinary subsection has got into the Bill and we want to know why.
Our experience not only on this Clause but on others is that there were discussions, in the other place, presumably, and with representatives of the other place, which went into great detail about how particular Clauses were to operate. They must have gone into detail. How did these proposals ever reach a Bill, otherwise?
This period has been called a "cooling off" period, a sort of safety net or probation period. We know of cases in British political history when Ministers have been pitched overboard but have made arrangements to land in a lifeboat and have been picked up at a very early date. There is the case of Sir Samuel Hoare and his resignation in 1935. He threw himself overboard and there was hardly a splash. We were not surprised when he climbed on board again a few months later in the risible guise of First Lord of the Admiralty. I can see how a probation period might have been of assistance then, because he would have had a guarantee of being able to exercise his voting rights in the other place for a period afterwards, and he would find that very convenient.
But if this is to be extended, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it disrupts some of the other calculations in the White Paper. It disrupts the calculations about the exact majority which is to prevail there. This is the most extraordinary affair. We shall later discuss again the Preamble and the arguments which we had earlier about that, but it is extraordinary that we cannot have in the Bill the methods by which the majority will be decided in the other place when we do have in the Bill what is going to happen to ex-Ministers or ex-law lords after they have exhausted the right of


other lords to continue voting, despite the fact that they are not attending for a third of the time.
How is it possible for a Measure to be creditably presented in the House with such a contretemps as that? Either the Government should present the whole Bill in the same elaborate procedure, so that we know what we are voting on, or they should remove such Clauses as this. We are invited to pass on trust most of the measures which will govern the way in which the whole arrangement will run, but the meticulous details of how it is to operate must be pinned down in every Clause and subsection. There could not be a more extraordinary way of conducting our legislation.
As the right hon. Gentleman and others have said, this raises the whole question how the majority is to be obtained in the other place and of what is to happen if there is a dispute about voting rights or eligibility of members in the other place. We had some discussion earlier about what would happen if those who had voted in a Division were shown subsequently, because of their voting record, to have done so improperly. In the present situation, there may be a dispute about persons who could be people very much in the political eye at the moment—a Minister who had been sacked or a law lord who had shown that he wished to engage in politics more than they are supposed to, according to the Bill.
On previous Amendments, I should have liked to put the case why some of us believe that law lords should not be regarded as though they had no political affiliation. I do not see why they should be put in this special category and have these rights, but, in this subsection, we are providing, not merely that law lords should be given special rights to vote, indeed, encouraged to vote, on political questions. The White Paper deliberately says that the Government want law lords to vote on political matters: that is their view on the question. Also, by the implication of this subsection, the Government wish to give law lords who have ceased to hold office the chance of influencing decisive votes in the House of Lords long after, or at any rate a considerable period after, they have ceased to hold office.
Here again the Bill eventually lapses into vagueness, although it is meticulous

in trying to protect these people. Who will determine what those "special reasons" are? We read in the Bill:
… within such extended period as the House may for special reasons allow.
Will this be referred again to the whole House? This raises the same questions as were raised over other parts of the Bill. Or will it be referred to this semi-quasi-judicial committee which will examine who has the right and who has not the right to vote?
Nothing could be more ridiculous than for us to set up a second Chamber in which the questions of who is and who is not to vote were left vague. Nothing could be more dangerous, particularly when, in another part of the Bill, a major objective is stated to be to make the Divisions in the other place much more narrow. One of the main purposes is to ensure that there is a majority for the Government in each Parliament, but that it is kept within limits as narrow as possible, or at any rate fairly narrow. I understand the reasons for that, but the more that this is done, the more significance must be attached to the vote of every individual lord, and the more, on critical occasions, a single vote this way or that can settle the whole question.
The Bill is vague in explaining whether law lords and ex-Ministers will, in certain circumstances, have the right to vote. This and other important matters have apparently yet to be decided and I do not know how the sub-committee which is to be established will clear up these problems. This sub-committee will have to solve some of the most obstruse political problems possible, such as who should be cross-benchers and whether the neutral peers are behaving as they should. It will also have to decide whether the absence of certain peers on business should count towards attendance. It might be difficult for the committee to decide whether an old Minister who has either been pushed out, for good or bad, or who has resigned should have the vote and, if so, in what circumstances.
We are setting up a second Chamber partly, it seems, for the purpose of exercising greater political power, yet a Chamber to be comprised of people whose right to vote will always be in doubt. We must consider what will happen when a Minister or law lord resigns in another place, whatever the reason. His view


about the age of retirement may differ from that of the Government's. A crisis may be faced by the nation and the question whether people in this category should have the right to vote will arise; that is, after leaving their offices. This problem is bound to arise if the political situation is inflamed because the glare of publicity will be directed to whether people in this position should have the power to decide the effectiveness of the second Chamber.
In years to come people will look back to these debates to see how the House of Commons tried to solve these problems. I hope, in the meantime, that the other place will apply its mind with care to solving them. I have opposed the Bill because of the uncertainties written into every part of it, and notably into the provision with which we are concerned. These uncertainties are bound, sooner or later, to lead to the consequences which I have described.
When it comes to deciding the question whether certain law lords and others are covered by this provision and whether they should be allowed to vote, there could be a clash between the two Houses. Indeed, the Bill will result in a clash of this type should accusations of bad faith be made because we have not made it clear who should have the right to vote and the fashion in which they should vote.
These uncertainties derive from the attempt which has been made to make an independent House of Lords subordinate. Although I would wish to modify some of the extravagant language used by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West in this respect—he referred to "inducements", to the law lords having been "suborned" and so on—there was some merit in his argument. I was searching for a more agreeable explanation for this situation.
There has been much talk about the sums of money that will be paid to the Lords, but we should realise that we are here discussing a political pension which will be attached to those who hold these offices in another place. We shall be telling them, "If you lose your jobs in the Lords, you will have a chance of continuing to influence the affairs of the other place for a longer period than others."
This question of how votes should be cast and who should be allowed to vote must be further considered, but when these matters receive further consideration, they will be out of our hands. Indeed, they may not even be matters for the other place to decide. We do not know how the sub-committee which will examine these issues is to be consituted.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The position could be even worse in that, the highest court in the land being the House of Lords, some of these matters might have to be decided there, which would complicate things extraordinarily.

Mr. Foot: That is a possibility. The sub-committee which will examine these matters appears to become more powerful as we get deeper into the Bill. This body will have to clean up this legislation if we leave it in its present state. That is why we must scrutinise it carefully and make it more precise. At least the Amendment, if accepted, would do something to add precision.
It must be made clear that even if the Government accepted the Amendment the problems of the Clause would not be solved. Its offensiveness would still remain. The Amendment would not remove our objection to the fact that special advantage will be given to those who have been Ministers and law lords.

It being Seven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair, further Proceeding standing postponed until after the consideration of Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business).

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Orders of the Day — WELLAND AND NENE (EMPINGHAM RESERVOIR) AND MID-NORTHAMPTONSHIRE WATER BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: May I announce that I have not selected the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Gains-borough (Mr. Kimball):
That the Bill be read a second time upon this day six months.


Nor have I selected the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis):
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which ignores—

(1) the serious loss of agricultural land and loss of livelihood to farmers and agricultural workers which will result from its passing, and
(2) the alternative methods of water storage available,

and which is based on exaggerated data on the projected water needs declared to be necessary for the future by the Promoters of the Bill.
This non-selection will not limit the debate in any way, and hon. Members may speak on the matter raised in the Amendments and any others in relation to the Bill.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether I might make a submission to you. At this point, it might be of assistance to the House on the Question that has just been proposed. You will recollect that it is often the custom when a number of Private Bills, some of them urgent, are for consideration at this time for Private Business, for it to be possible so that they may not be lost at that time, for the debate to continue after the interruption of Business at Ten o'clock. On this occasion, the Motion to achieve that position, which can, I believe, be tabled only in the name of a Minister, has not been tabled, and therefore that is not possible for the House this evening.
What I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, is whether there is any way in which those of us who are concerned as constituency Members about some of the later Bills—as, for instance, the Wolverhampton Corporation Bill—can be assured that time as soon as possible after the House resumes will be found, if necessary, for those Bills which are urgent. I apprehend that if assistance of this kind could be given, it might also be a help to the debate on the Question which has just been proposed.

Mr. Speaker: I am not unsympathetic to the point which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has put. I understand that there is some urgency about the Walsall Corporation Bill, the West Bromwich Corporation Bill and the Wolverhampton Corporation Bill, but, unfortunately,

there is no suspension of the Rule tonight. It might be possible to get to them tonight. If not, I think that the Leader of the House or the Chairman of Ways and Means will note the representations made by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. John Wells: Further to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), surely it would be possible, through you, Mr. Speaker, to write to the Corporations which are bringing forward these later Bills to say that if they were to remove an objectionable attitude to the Gypsies Act which is already——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not going to debate the Amendments to those Bills that are on the Order Paper until we get to them. I hope that we can get on with our work. Mr. Bradley.

7.3 p.m.

Mr. Tom Bradley: I am fully aware of all the passion and fury which this Measure has aroused in Rutland. In fact, protests there have produced a kind of hydrological Stansted. It is not any purpose of mine to raise the temperature of an already inflammable situation, because I believe that the facts, when simply put, argue for themselves.
As it is now fashionable, certainly topical and necessary, to declare interests, I suppose that I ought to declare mine. I have several interests, but I hasten to add that I have no financial interest. I am resident in the area of supply that is designated in the Bill. I am also a former member of the Mid-Northamptonshire Water Board. I am also a former Parliamentary candidate for the constituency of Rutland and Stamford. I was the candidate there for eight years, covering three General Elections, and whilst my experience was not as fruitful as that of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis), whom I am glad to see in his place, I think that I can claim to have gained a similar amount of familiarity with the charm of that county. Let me say at once that I think that this proposed reservoir will enhance the attractiveness of, and will in no way desecrate, that delightful county. My fourth


personal interest is as one of the representatives of Leicester City, which stands also to benefit by the passage of the Bill.
The Bill is promoted jointly by the Welland and Nene River Authority and the Mid-Northamptonshire Water Board. It seeks authority to construct a very large reservoir, with a capacity of 27,300 million gallons, near Oakham. It is known as the Empingham Reservoir. This is to meet the growing demand for water in the counties of Rutland, Northamptonshire and South Lincolnshire which must be met by 1975–76.
It is proposed to construct the reservoir on the upper waters of the River Gwash, and to obtain supplies from the surplus flows of water, from a point upstream from Stamford, from the River Welland, and from the River Nene at a point upstream from Peterborough, through tunnels and pipes. The Bill therefore authorises the construction of the reservoir at a cost estimated at £16½ million, and states that for the water thus made available through the construction of the reservoir and the intake, the Mid-Northamptonshire Water Board should be empowered to construct treatment works, pumping stations, and so forth, in order to make the water available to parts of Rutland and Northamptonshire. The estimated cost of the works for this purpose is roughly £8 million.
I remind the House that the Bill stems from a recommendation by the Water Resources Board, which conducted a survey of supplies in South-East England. The Board issued a report in 1966, and identified a central area within South-East England, roughly from the north of Northampton, south to the London Basin, and east across Essex, for which future water supplies would have to be developed, not on an individual water undertaking basis but, I would emphasise, on a regional basis, by a programme of suggested ground water schemes which needed immediate investigation if known deficiencies by 1981 were to be met.
It is very important to note that, within its observations, the Board made a specific recommendation. It stressed that it was essential to proceed with one major new reservoir scheme before the other studies were completed, because of the rapid growth in the population within

the area of the Welland and Nene River Authority and because of the remoteness of that authority from the potential ground water schemes in the Thames Conservancy and the Great Ouse River Authority areas. It therefore recommended that a storage reservoir be constructed at either Empingham or Manton.
The House set up the Water Resources Board under the 1963 Water Resources Act. It is no use hon. Members seeking tonight to reject the findings of the Water Resources Board.
I recognise that the Board's recommendation that a large storage reservoir should be built at either Empingham or Manton does not help the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford greatly, because both places are within his constituency. The Water Resources Board came to the conclusion that large reservoirs could be constructed at either of those sites but that Manton would have a capacity some 5,750 million gallons less than Empingham. Further, Empingham would yield 50 million gallons of water a day, whereas Manton's yield would be 40 million gallons of water a day.
It is also a substantial point that the construction of a reservoir at Manton instead of at Empingham would cost nearly £2 million more, largely owing to the much greater height of the dam needed and bigger raw pumping mains. Empingham, with a top water level 100 feet lower than Manton, obviously involves less costs in abstracting supplies from the rivers Welland and Nene. By choosing Empingham of the two sites suggested there is a 27 per cent. saving in terms of yield.
It should not be overlooked at this point that a reservoir at Empingham is also very conveniently situated for the discharge of water, if necessary, to augment river supplies in periods of low flows to assist the expanding city of Peterborough in the area of the South Lincolnshire Board, which estimates that it will need an additional 10 million gallons a day over the next 20 years.
Having looked at these statistics, we must ask ourselves whether a reservoir is necessary at all. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford has had an Amendment on the Order Paper for some weeks calling the whole thing in question. He has suggested in the Amendment,


which I understand you are not calling, Mr. Speaker, that future estimates of the needs of the area have been exaggerated. Have they? I can argue only from my own experience of the Mid-Northamptonshire Water Board. The statistics could be enlarged greatly if they encompassed the whole of the Welland and Nene River Authority.
The Mid-Northamptonshire Water Board has a statutory duty to supply an area of 505 square miles, covering most of Northamptonshire, a small part of Rutland, and small parts of Leicestershire. Whilst being predominantly rural in character, there are large urban centres, and two of those urban centres—Corby and Northampton—are designated for expansion under the New Towns Act.
We can look at some interesting growth rate figures which are projected for Northampton and Corby alone. The total new town area population of Northampton is 130,000. It is expected to rise to 230,000 by 1981 and to 300,000 by A.D 2000. Corby, a town which has already trebled its population in the last 20 years, with 45,000 people today, is expected to enlarge to 75,000 by 1981 and to 100,000 by A.D. 2000.
There are two more important towns in Northamptonshire—Wellingborough and Daventry—which are being specially developed to accept overspill population from London and Birmingham respectively. By the end of this century the population in the Mid-Northamptonshire Water Board's area alone is expected to increase from 350,000 to over 737,000, and by 1981 it will be up to 570,000.
The consumption per head of population in the Mid-Northamptonshire Water Board's area in 1949 was 23 gallons per day. The existing rate of consumption is 51 gallons per day. It is estimated that by 1981 it will be 77 gallons per head per day. I suggest to the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, who accuses the promoters of the Bill of exaggeration, that that is not a rash estimate in the light of our past experience.
Therefore, the combination of these two things—increased population, on the one hand, and increased consumption per head, on the other—has always harassed

the Mid-Northamptonshire Water Board in seeking to supply the community for which it is responsible with adequate water. We all know the great and growing demands per head of population for water. The introduction of immersion heaters, hot water systems, washing machines, garden hoses, to say nothing of an extension of rural water schemes and the needs of industry, have all added to the burdens of water boards and river authorities.
The existing reservoirs in the Mid-Northamptonshire Water Board's yield about 11 million gallons a day. These are supplemented by an arrangement with the Great Ouse Water Authority to receive a further 12 million gallons a day if necessary, making a total call of 23 million gallons a day. On existing estimates, these combined resources will probably see the Mid-Northamptonshire Water Board through to 1974. Thereafter, the growing needs of the rapidly expanding towns which I have mentioned must be met, otherwise expansion will grind to a halt: indeed, it will never get off the ground.
Not only that, but we can envisage a normal—not a new town, but a normal—population growth in Northamptonshire, if the Bill is rejected tonight, being faced with permanent restrictions on its use of water for domestic consumers. By 1980 the Board estimates that 42 million gallons per day will be required. Five years later the requirement will be 53 million gallons per day. In 1990, 61 million gallons per day will be required. By the year A.D. 2000 70 million gallons per day will be required. This rising curve of demand is fully in accordance with the general pattern revealed by the Water Resources Board's South Eastern Survey which I have already mentioned. It is certainly not based on any exaggeration or wild guesses from any other source.
The Bill, if passed, would enable the Mid-Northamptonshire Water Board to take 36 million gallons a day from Empingham which, added to its existing resources, would satisfy the needs of the area only until 1989. It is then hoped that alternative sources of supply will come to our assistance. I want to deal with these alternative water supplies, because I have a feeling that they will be mentioned by hon. Members opposite as though they are now current prospects.
The Water Resources Board, for instance, has advised that desalination, which is one of the alternatives, will play no important rôle in meeting demands until well into the 1980s, on the grounds of cost alone.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Has not the Water Resources Board been proved to be very inaccurate in its costing, in that it now admits that the figure which it presented to the public in 1963, namely 10s. per 10,000 gallons, was incorrect and that it accepts a figure of between 5s. and 6s. per 1,000 gallons?

Mr. Bradley: I am not specifically talking about the cost of water at present. I am referring in any case to figures produced by the Water Resources Board in 1966, not in 1963, for its estimates of requirements and capacity within the area. It remains a fact—I believe that this is widely accepted amongst all the authorities—that desalination will play no important rôle in meeting demands anywhere until the 1980s.
A similar argument applies to a further alternative, the Wash barrage. This is just simply not on the same time scale as that which is required by the promoters of the Bill. The Wash barrage or other similar schemes will not be practicable before the 1980s, if then. They may not come into operation until 1990. In my view, there is no other prospect.
I remind the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, who said that not enough investigation has been carried out, that 64 other sites and schemes were examined, and it was concluded that there was no prospect of obtaining sufficient quantities of water for the Board's area to meet the huge demands which will be made upon it by 1985 or even by 1975, when the pressure will begin, other than by constructing the Empingham reservoir.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: May I correct the hon. Gentleman on one point? There were 64 other sites, not schemes, investigated. This is important, because it is the other schemes which offer the possible alternative.

Mr. Bradley: Very well; 64 sites and/or schemes were examined.
To proceed on a day-to-day basis, as the National Farmers' Union and other objectors to the Bill have suggested and seem to desire, hoping that a delay of a "few years"—that is the phrase used—may prove the facilities unnecessary, would, in my view, be the height of folly and a dereliction of duty on the part of public officials who are charged with the responsibility of providing water at the right time.
I said earlier that I had a constituency interest in the Bill. I am happy to say that the Leicester Corporation supports the Bill. The Leicester Corporation as a water authority is responsible for supplying most of Leicestershire and Rutland, an area of 800 square miles, serving a population of 635,000 people, who consume 31 million gallons a day. Its estimate of future trends indicates that by 1973 existing sources will have become inadequate, and total demand is expected in its area to reach a level of 36 million gallons a day. Why is that? The reason is simple. Previously moribund villages in Rutland and South-East Leicestershire—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—are now becoming desirable development areas for town and city commuters. Already in the very area of these villages in Rutland and South-East Leicestershire, for which the Leicester Corporation Water Board is responsible, consumption rose by 86 to 103 per cent. from 1958 to 1965, the last period for which figures are available. Moreover, industrial demands from Market Harborough, Oakham and Lutterworth are increasing. The population of Lutterworth is expected to double by 1981.
Therefore, there is a desire on the part of the Leicester City authority to obtain an extra four million gallons a day to meet the shortfall, and it would welcome the supply from the Empingham reservoir, because its alterntaive, if it could not have the extra supply which it knows it will need from Empingham, would be to obtain it from the River Dove Water Board. This would mean pumping the water 38 miles through large mains from a point in Derbyshire and taking capacity needed there for areas of Derbyshire which already have inadequate sources of their own.
I said earlier that this reservoir would add to the attractiveness of Rutland. If there has been any exaggeration, the


exaggeration has come from the agitators on this matter, because the area to be submerged represents only 3½ per cent. of the total acreage of the county. [Laughter.] I am sorry not to have quite understood that collective interruption. I shall repeat the point in case it was misheard, The area to be submerged represents 3½ per cent. of the total acreage of the county.
The reservoir would be not only a public utility but an amenity. This great expanse of water would be an attraction. Many of my constituents would wish to fish and to sail boats there. And why not? The public is putting up the money. They should be enabled to enjoy properly controlled facilities, which I know can be arranged. Experience has shown at Grafham Water in Huntingdonshire and Pitsford Reservoir at Northampton that such recreational pursuits can be organised without detriment to the local residents, and I should expect this to be so so for the Empingham reservoir, too.

Mr. Bert Hazell: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Bradley: No. I have given way once or twice already. I have been speaking for some time, others wish to take part, and I am coming to a conclusion.
I regret as much as anyone the loss of 3,000 acres of agricultural land. But ever since we emerged from a purely pastoral society, we have had to strike a balance between the competing claims of the countryside and the relentless demands of our growing urban areas. If the extent and pace of development is to be maintained in the fast-expanding towns of Northampton, Corby, Wellingborough and Daventry, together with the market towns and villages of East Leicestershire and Rutland, it is vital that adequate water be made available. If we reject the Bill tonight, we shall put in peril all the large-scale planned expansion of population and industry throughout the entire region, and we shall make a mockery of our responsibility for the future.
A number of Petitions have been lodged against the Bill. They can be scrutinised by the Private Bill Committee, together with the promoters. It would be a fatal mistake to throw out the Bill

tonight, and a slap in the face for the Water Resources Board. I earnestly hope that the House will give the Bill a second Reading.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish to arrange, if I can, a balanced debate. This is a non-party issue. It will help the Chair if hon. Members who wish to speak and who have not done so will indicate to me whether they are for or against the Bill.
As the debate must end by 10 o'clock, reasonably brief speeches will help.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: It gives me no pleasure to oppose the Bill because I wish that it had not been brought before the House or that this suggestion had not been made. However, in opposing the Bill and speaking opposite the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley), the only pleasure I shall have will be in debating with him, which I find a pleasure. I hope that he will lose at the end of the debate tonight, in the same way as, happily, he lost the election which he fought in Rutland, but I congratulate him on his speech. He made as good a case as he could for the Bill, a case which I propose now to demolish.
If by some chance the hon. Member were to win on a vote tonight, so that the Bill went to Committee and was accepted, he would have made a great mark or splash upon Rutland, providing for himself a memorial there bigger than any memorial to any Member of Parliament, past or present. Indeed, we should have to consider calling the new reservoir "Bradley's Basin".
I oppose the Bill for several reasons. I take, first, the purely parochial matters. Obviously, the loss of land, 3,000 to 4,000 acres—the water area is about 3,000 acres, but the total extent will stretch to 4,000—is not to be accepted by any county, let alone a small one. We do not wish to be a kind of towpath round a lake. We have no wish for another Windermere in Rutland. The reservoir would be almost the size of Lake Windermere. It is no consolation to the farmers who will be affected, about 40 of them altogether, and a great many more farm workers displaced—

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I have been studying the National Farmers' Union memorandum on the Bill, which


says that 24 farmers and smallholders will be displaced, but a number of other farmers and holders will be affected in varying degrees. Does the hon. Gentleman's 40 include those, and can he say how many farm workers will lose their houses?

Mr. Lewis: The number of farmers affected has increased since that report was issued. I understand from a letter I received this morning that the number has risen because of certain works that have to be built in connection with the reservoir, which will displace or upset some more. The scheme does not involve an enormous number of houses, but the land for food production is important. It is necessary that this country should retain the maximum amount of good land for food production when we are trying to cut down imports.
The finance of the undertaking is enormous. With the works ancillary to the reservoir, the total cost will be about £23 million, and this at a time when the rate of interest has never been higher. Moreover, this is the first of a number of reservoirs likely to be suggested by the Water Resources Board.
I do not deal with this on a parochial basis. We do not want the reservoir in Rutland, but I want to argue the case in the national context, because I think that that is how the House would wish it. First, is the reservoir necessary? Is it justified, and is there an alternative? To the question of whether it is necessary and justified, the answer is, "No". To the question of whether there is an alternative, the answer is, "Yes".
I want to answer all these questions by simply taking the reports of the Water Resources Board, which were dealt with at some length by the hon. Gentleman. I believe that the forecasts to justify the reservoir are wholly exaggerated. The projections for the future are based on over-insurance, and the data are questionable. If I can prove that, then the cost, the upheaval, the destruction of the countryside, and the loss of food-growing land are absolutely unacceptable. I wish now to show that the least I shall prove is that there is confusion and uncertainty in the figures, that everything is guesswork, and that the guesswork is more likely to be wrong than right.
The promoters of the Bill say that there will be a steep increase in the

demand for water in the East Midlands for the towns of Northampton, Peterborough and Corby and other areas. They proceed to put the population growth on an escalator. The statement in favour of the Bill gives the increase as 1,282,500 towards the end of the century. But that is a somewhat higher figure than the one given by the Water Resources Board Report on the Great Ouse Basin, which itself was high enough, Here the suggested increase in population of 300,000 by 1981 over 1964 gives a 50 per cent. increase, and the 600,000 increase by 2001 a 100 per cent. increase. I do not necessarily accept these population figures, but I shall come to that later.
There is an interesting fact in proof of the over-estimation of the likely use of water which can be seen in the South-East Report on water supplies for the area. It is estimated in that report that by 1981 there will be a population growth of about 50 per cent. over the 1964 figure, but the growth in demand is given as 150 per cent. That report puts the increase in population between 1981 and 2001 as 40 per cent., but consumption is then estimated to go up by only 60 per cent. So we have a 50 per cent. population jump to 1981 with consumption 150 per cent. up, and a 40 per cent. population increase to 2001 and consumption up by 60 per cent.
But there is another report, by T. and C. Hawksley, civil engineers, who were asked to prepare it by the Welland and Nene River Board. They give the need up to 1981 as increasing not by 150 per cent. but by 100 per cent., and the need to 2001 as being up not by 60 per cent. but by 168 per cent.

Sir David Renton: From which report was my hon. Friend first quoting?

Mr. Lewis: I think I gave the reference. I shall take rather long if I have to back-track. It was a report of the Water Resources Board. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend will find the reference in HANSARD, but in any case I will give it to him afterwards if he wishes.
Next we come to the statement in favour of the Bill given by the promoters, which I received only this morning. The


promoters give different figures. They say that up to 1981 consumption will be up by only 50 per cent. and that up to 2001 it will be up by 80 per cent. on the present level. Those in favour of the undertaking should make up their minds on what basis they justify it, because the reports conflict. The only thing they have in common is that they absolutely exaggerate the future demand for water. If we are to accept those figures, I can only think that our grandchildren will drink water all day and either bath or flush all night.
I now come to the reason advanced for the projection of population. The major part of the case for the new reservoir and the others to come is on the development of new towns and the extensions of existing towns. I notice that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government was reported to have said at the week-end that by the year 2000 there would be a new town being built every six or seven weeks, and he said that there would be 15 million more people in the United Kingdom. If that is true, it means an increase in population of 27 per cent., by the end of the century and I doubt that, because it takes no account of emigration. It is already indicated that there will be more emigration than immigration in a few years from now.

Mr. Lubbock: And it takes no account of the Pill.

Mr. Lewis: The interesting thing is that the 27 per cent. increase is not as large as the increase in population put forward by the Water Resources Board, which says that by the year 2000 there will be a doubling of population in the East Midlands area. Either the Minister is wrong—and I guess that he probably hopes he is—or the water board is ahead of the Minister. We know that that is not very difficult with the present Government in office. But if the Government's policy of moving industry to the development areas continues, clearly people will not be moving into the East Midlands area. The hon. Member for Leicester, North-East knows perfectly well that it is very difficult to get industrial development certificates for industry to move into the East Midlands area. If

the Government continue to push industry into the development areas, an increase in population on this scale cannot possibly take place in this area.
If the need for the reservoir is based on new town development, perhaps we had better look at a new town, let us look at, say, the growth of Peterborough and Corby. The Peterborough new town development is already behind schedule. Apart from this, in a 1966 report on the expansion of Peterborough the Ministry of Housing and Local Government said:
Sufficient water is expected to be available from the Lincolnshire limestone aquifer up to 1981.
[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Leicester, North-East says "No", but that is what the Ministry said. Presumably this is assuming that the town is up to schedule, but it is not. Therefore, any possible explosive demand from there in the next 10 years is not on.
Then there is the case of Corby. This will give us a fair guide as to the growth of a new town. It establishes considerable ground for scepticism about the demand for water. The planned demand for housing in Corby was 633 houses a year. After 1970, this is going to drop to 430 a year. Lack of land may well mean that the number of houses built in Corby will be 300 a year. Progress in Corby in recent years has been 20 per cent. below the target today. At the moment the build-up of population is 7,500 people below.

Mr. Bradley: But the hon. Gentleman must accept that the population of Corby has trebled in the last 20 years and is continuing to rise.

Mr. Lewis: Yes—but the proposal for the reservoir is on the basis of a much greater growth of population in the next 10 years, never mind the last 20 years. Employment opportunities in Corby are already dropping. Unemployment is increasing and a considerable number of houses have been standing empty. The statement by the promoters of the Bill says:
… the town of Corby is expanding fast.
It has expanded fast but it is now slowing up. Facts based on figures are more realistic than trends conjured up by conjecture. Part of the case for the Bill rests


on the increase shown as the normal growth of population. Leicester is making a claim but again it has been said by authorities that Leicester can still get sufficient water supplies from Derbyshire.

Mr. Bradley: At the expense of Derbyshire areas.

Mr. Lewis: There are spare supplies for Leicester in Derbyshire. In any case, the growth in the number of individuals is not the main cause of the increased use of water. The main cause is house-building and industrial use and, therefore, population figures have to be divided into two or three because two or three people go into one house and there is communal use of the water. The assessment cannot be based entirely on the number of individuals.
I therefore put several propositions. First, the growth of population forecast is exaggerated. Secondly, the total water requirement is over-stretched even if the population figures put forward are accepted. Thirdly, if the forecast of population is wrong, then there is a massive and expensive miscalculation. But, of course, there is more to it than that. It was the Water Resources Board itself, among others, which asked the Government to go ahead with a desk study of the Wash barrage scheme and, arising from that study, we assume that eventually there will be a feasibility study and presumably the Board expected that, in the long run, we would be bound to have a Wash barrage.
If this present scheme goes ahead, it would probably put off the Wash barrage for ever because the amount of finance involved in this and other schemes will eat the money available, and we all know that the Treasury, once it has allowed expenditure of this scale, would look very closely before it allowed extra money to be spent on a Wash barrage. If this were to happen, then the reservoir would be a white elephant, or a water elephant, or whatever one might call it.

Mr. Lubbock: A washout.

Mr. Lewis: I cannot believe that, in the next 10 years, there will be neither a Wash barrage nor a break-through on desalination. Again, I quote the passage on desalination in the statement issued by the promoters:

The Water Resources Board have advised that on the grounds of cost desalination is unlikely to play an important part in meeting demand certainly until the early 1980s.
The inference I draw from that is that the Board expects desalination to play a part after the 1980s. So what we want, and what the Water Resources Board wants, is a bridging scheme between now and the 1980s.
Assuming as I do that the demand for water through population growth or through extra use will not be as high as suggested, I want to answer the question as to how we provide the bridging. Again I proceed on the basis of the reports of the Water Resources Board itself. Its report on water supplies in South-East England declares that ground water resources in the Lincolnshire River Authority should be developed. On 27th February, I got out of the Library a report of the Board on the ground water resources available in Lincolnshire. It says:
A Pilot Scheme should be carried out to study the problem of artificially recharging the Lincolnshire limestone.
This Bill is premature until we get the report of such a study.
Page 2 of the Statement by the promoters says:
The Water Resources Board recommended that the most economic and beneficial way of meeting the estimated deficiencies in the central area up to 1981"—
this is the bridging period—
would be by a programme of ground water schemes supplemented by pumped storage reservoirs, all of which required immediate investigation and … comparative studies.
The Board has a committee ready to look into it. It therefore confirms what I have said—that, for the bridging operation, there are possibilities in the limestone of Lincolnshire. The volume of limestone there is about 150 million gallons—20 times the national replenishment.
The 1966 report of the Board said that no large-scale scheme designed to artificially recharge aquifers was in operation but the Metropolitan Water Board had investigated the process and there were possibilities of large supplies through it. This applied to North Lincolnshire and to South Lincolnshire. The Board added that demand from the limestone was likely to exceed the supply by 1978.
If that is so, presumably the supply up to 1978 is assured. If this reservoir is chosen on the basis of a three-year gap between 1978 and 1980, it cannot be justified. I want to requote some figures I gave at the beginning. I said that the population was expected to increase, on the Board's own figures, up to 1981 by 50 per cent. But this was without any redevelopment of ground water supplies in Lincolnshire being taken into account. That was without the study scheme, without any probing and without any evaluation of what this might produce. The demand would be unlikely to exceed the supply up to 1978, presumably taking into account the 50 per cent. increase in population.
In my view, the gap is capable of being bridges between now and 1981. It is not only likely, but certain to be bridged if we take account of three methods which could be used: first, the development of ground water resources; secondly, smaller reservoirs; thirdly, the use of gravel pits. To quote a hydrological survey by the Welland and Nene River Board:
There are numerous gravel pits around Deeping, Lincolnshire, and various places in the area some of which are capable of providing appreciable supplies".
In other words, there are smaller reservoirs available on the spot.
By implication, the Water Resources Board admits all these things. I have been through dozens of papers. If by 1975 we are not moving towards a Wash barrage or cheaper desalinisation, or metering, which is unlikely—and we have metering in industry anyway—then will be time enough to consider the Bill and the possibility of having to have this reservoir.

Mr. Bradley: It will be too late.

Mr. Lewis: I have tried to prove that it will not be too late and that the gap can be bridged. The likely projected demand is exaggerated, the probable population increase is exaggerated, and the likely growth of the use of water is exaggerated. As has been said, there has been an increase in the use of water in recent years. This is the age of the introduction of the washing machine and so forth. We have had developments in housing which have given people baths

which they would not otherwise have had. I accept that there has been an increase in industrial use, but this will level off.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman has perfectly correctly said that domestic use of water is not nearly as important as industrial use. Has he made any study of what will happen to the steel industry in the area in the next few years, or at any rate as far as 1981, and what estimates has he reached of the amount of water which industry would consume?

Mr. Lewis: The steel industry already has its own reservoir, and it is a very pleasant place. This is part of the answer to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East. We have a reservoir for Rutland, partly in Rutland and partly in Northants. It provides water for the steel industry and the facilities for recreation and so on, so that we do not need a second.
The Mid-Northants Water Board gave some interesting statistics of the daily use of water, and these figures completely contradict and suggestion of a large increase. In 1962 and 1963 the number of gallons per person per day was 46·8; in 1963 and 1964 the figure dropped to 46·7; in 1964 and 1965 it was steady at 44·9; and 1965 and 1966 it rose to 45·9; in 1966 and 1967 it was again steady at 45·9. There is no suggestion from those figures that the use of water will spiral if no account is taken of an increase in population.
In Rutland we have had a fund to which all the farmers have contributed and out of which we have paid experts to assist us. They have not assisted me with my speech, but they have produced a report to try to help. They were Dutch experts, because we thought that the Dutch knew a good deal about water. They were Ilalo, water engineers of Arnhem, and they prepared an interim report on the reservoir. I will not weary the House with further details, but I should like to quote one passage of their report. It says:
Based on the present situation it is likely that the proposed reservoir will not be fully utilised during the next decade.
It will hardly be built in the next five years; the report says that it will not be fully utilised during the next decade, and yet the promoters of the Bill say that they want the reservoir for the years 1970–1980. These Dutch engineers also


say that the cost to the consumer of the water from the reservoir would be heavy. I will try to be brief—

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman has been advised that the water would be expensive. Would he give the figures? It would help the House if we knew just how expensive the water would be.

Mr. Lewis: I do not have those figures. I will study the report and perhaps it will be possible to answer the hon. Gentleman. The report shows an increase in cost.
I have tried to show that the conflict of statistics in the various reports, the guesses and the so-called forecasts do not justify a reservoir. They are confusing at best and exaggerated and ill-founded at worst, on population climb, on supply demand and on time scale.
Last week, the Welland and Nene River Board asked the Ministry of Housing and Local Government for more money to improve the drainage of the Welland and Nene. It has been asked to do so by the farmers in the area. The Board has done much good work in this connection. It was refused an increase—the Government said that they did not have the money. There is a tight squeeze by the Treasury and yet here it is proposed that there should be a reservoir costing £23 million to provide water which will be more expensive to the consumer than the water he now uses.
The Bill is premature, disruptive, too massive and unacceptable on the basis of the case made for it. It does not solve anything in the short term and in the long term it is more rather than less likely to be unnecessary, for it will be overtaken by advances of technology in this as in other subjects, and advances of technology in the last 10 or 15 years have been tremendous.
I should like to quote from the 1968 Report of the Water Resources Board. I should like to read much of it, but I will content myself with quoting from paragraph 194 which, under the heading "Meeting the Demand", says:
An instance of doubtful reasoning in the water field is the suggestion that there is a self-evident economy in building large projects rather than a series of small ones. The foresight of Victorian engineers who built for posterity is often commended, whilst the truth

may be that some of those who built large water projects did not take sufficient account of the reasources they were pre-empting and set a rigid pattern of development for too far ahead.
I have no quarrel with that. I am not a Victorian and I believe that the Water Resources Board proposes to build a reservoir similar to the kind of project necessary in the Victorian age. We have outgrown it and we doubt the necessity for it. Rutland makes no plea without proof. We are not lacking in public conscience. There is no alternative to this reservoir. We will accept it. But, on the figures and proposals put forward by the Water Board, we can prove, and have proved, that it is unnecessary.
The County of Rutland has as its symbol an inverted horseshoe. Any peer who comes to Rutland may be invited to go to the castle and put a horseshoe in the castle. There are dozens and dozens of them there which have been collected over the centuries. This reservoir, to big by half, is shaped like a horseshoe. That is the final indignity, and we reject it.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Angus Maude: I am grateful for the opportunity to support my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) in his opposition to the Bill. He made an extremely powerful case against it. This is not the only Bill of its kind which we are likely to see. The Rutland reservoir is not unique. It is one of perhaps half a dozen or more which are pending. Nearly all of them are opposed. This is in a real sense a test case.
The hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley), in his advocacy of the Bill, started by saying, in a rather cavalier fashion, "It is no good the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford and other opponents of the Bill saying that this is not necessary". That is precisely what we do say. We think it a little arrogant that the case against the Bill should be pre-empted. The evidence for it is inadequate. Far more evidence should have been produced in the form of, not only population studies, but hydrological studies.
What worries people in rural areas more than anything, as we see reservoir project after reservoir project put forward, is the way in which large areas of


first-class agricultural land and the environment of hundreds of thousands of people are gradually eroded or destroyed as a kind of reflex from urban development which has often been planned with no long-term thought about the secondary implications in terms of water demand and other things.
We see in the statement from the promoters of the Bill the expansion expected in Peterborough and the extensions of population in Corby and other places. All too often the country dweller gets the impression that somebody plans development first and then we are presented with a fait accompli in the form of the flooding of another 2,000 or 3,000 acres of agricultural land comparatively remote from the areas where the development is to take place. Rutland is not a very big county, but this reservoir is larger than Lake Windermere, which is no small reservoir.
We are entitled to say that the building of shallow valley reservoirs of this kind is not only uneconomic but is the worst possible use of the land involved. If reservoirs are built in wide, shallow valleys, what happens, as anyone knows who has been near one, is that when there is a period of drought or the replenishment sources begin to dry up there is an increasing area of land which is offensive, unsightly and in every way unsatisfactory
The hon. Member for Leicester, North-East and the promoters of the Bill say that this will provide a fine amenity for the people of Rutland and the neighbouring town dwellers who will be able to use the reservoir as a centre for boating, swimming, fishing and so on. Presumably this is supposed to reconcile to their fate the farmers whose land is to be flooded and the villagers whose villages are to be inundated. In fact, it has precisely the opposite effect. It is bad enough to have half one's land flooded but for it to be turned into an urban tourist resort as well is the end.
Nobody denies that in this case the plans produced by the eminent landscape architects who served as consultants are admirable, assuming that this is the sort of thing that one wants to do. But do not let us be told that this is an additional amenity or attraction for Rutland. It

is not. It will be a disaster for Rutland and everybody there knows it.
The hon. Member for Leicester, North East talked as if the Board had made a careful study as between Empingham and Manton and had decided on Empingham which is considerably larger, and left us with the impression that that was that and Manton was safe. But that is not so at all. We are told by the promoters that they hoped that Empingham would make it unnecessary for them to flood Manton as well on the assumption that alternative sources of water would be found by about 1985.
The trouble always is that these things are cumulative. Each time one of these things happens it acts as a precedent for yet another infliction somewhere else Once the Empingham reservoir has started once this precedent has been set, the inducement to do proper long-term planning on a large scale to deal with this and increasing water shortages in other places will be reduced. Sooner or later we shall find that the Wash barrage study has been deferred again, and a Bill will be brought forward in about 10 years from now to flood the Manton Valley as well. This has happened in other parts of the country.
The Wash barrage is a sad story. What seems to happen on these occasions is that the long-term, large-scale thinking and planning is deferred. We are then confronted, as if with fait accompli, with the necessity for emergency action to meet a need which must have been apparent to everybody for some time. Then we are told that there is no alternative and that it is no good our saying that we can argue against it.
Let us see what happened in the case of the Wash barrage. The Water Resources Board appointed a firm of consultants, Messrs. Binnie and Partners, to investigate the Ouse Valley water system. But this firm reported as long ago as 1965 that the Wash barrage was essential and that a feasibility study, which it was then estimated would cost about £1½ million, was urgently necessary. That was in 1965, and we are, as far as I can gather—perhaps the Minister will tell us—no nearer to an undertaking to start a proper feasibility study now than we were in 1965.
Meanwhile, we are faced not only with this Bill but, no doubt, with other


similar proposals in the neighbourhood. Everybody who knows anything about this subject has foreseen that a large-scale long-term solution was necessary. Private experts have been doing their own research into it. I do not know whether hon. Members have seen or heard of the study which was done by Mr. Harry Teggin, a partner of the noble Lord, Lord Esher in Messrs. Brett and Pollen, for a combined Wash barrage, city airport and deep sea port. Speaking to The Times on 27th September, 1968, the noble Lord, Lord Esher who is a past president of the R.I.B.A., said this:
We have had discussions with government officials about it, but it is so very long term and has so many ramifications that it is beyond the scale of Government thinking at the moment. Financial techniques for this kind of very long term investment do not seem to exist in this country yet.
It is time they did. If they do not exist soon, and if Government, local government, water board and river board thinking does not soon make this possible, we shall be confronted not simply with this Bill and with another Bill for Manton in a few years' time, but with a steady shrinkage of agricultural land in a country which needs all the production from its agriculture that it can get.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. John Temple: I have a great deal of sympathy with my two hon. Friends who are opposing the Bill but, as a member of the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association and as a vice-president of the River Authorities' Association, I feel that I can look at this problem, which is a very difficult one, from both sides.
No one wishes to drown more land with water. It is a very sombre thought. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) that the long-term implications of water conservation are of the highest possible importance. Over the years Governments have dragged their feet on long-term research which would have brought answers which might well have made the Bill which we are considering tonight unnecessary. It is a melancholy picture to contemplate in any county on any agricultural land the creation of a reservoir which will occupy an area almost as large as Lake Windermere. [HON. MEMBERS:

"Larger."] It is approximately the same size as Lake Windermere.
The Minister ought to announce today that he will set up a high-powered commission of inquiry to investigate the provision and disposal of water in our country. I do not believe that these two major factors have been looked at together. The technical experts have done their stuff, but the vast capital expenditures involved, which will fall so heavily on our economy, have not been effectively weighed up.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon spoke of a possible six further reservoirs. I do not know where those are, but I am distinctly apprehensive about a further rash of reservoirs breaking out all over our country. There will be an increasing demand for water by the growing population. There may be a case for the reuse of water and for industry using water which is not drinking water. I ask the Minister to announce tonight that he will set up a commission of inquiry to look at the broader picture.
The case in detail for the Bill has been deployed on both sides and I do not intend to talk in terms of millions of gallons per day because that has already been done.
In 1963 I followed most closely the passage of the Water Resources Act. Alas, in certain respects that Act, which was brought in by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), has proved to be defective. If Section 67 of the Water Resources Act had worked in the way in which it was designed to work, the Measure which we are considering would have been unnecessary and the scheme could have been put through by a Ministerial Order. I ask the Minister what plans he has for amending legislation.
I believe that this subject should be dealt with nationally. I have great sympathy with the promoters of the Bill—of course I have—and I shall come down in favour of the Bill but, nevertheless, the onus of promoting this Bill should be firmly in the hands of the Government, as was the intention of the Water Resources Act.
The Water Resources Act, 1963, is defective in other respects. This is a great misfortune, because the whole basis


of abstraction from our rivers was on the fixation of what was termed "minimum acceptable flow." Unfortunately, six or seven years have gone by and not a single minimum acceptable flow has been laid down for any river in England and Wales. I question whether one will ever be, and I am in extreme doubt whether the whole system will prove workable.
Are there alternatives to the Empingham scheme? Much has been said about the importation of water from other areas. Alas, there is a shortage more or less universally throughout the country, and the only way in which that can be dealt with is by building somewhere—and I stress somewhere—large regulating reservoirs. I know what the Welsh think about more of their land being covered by water, so we cannot look to the western half of the country, possibly by means of a great contour canal, a water grid or a pipeline having the same effect, for water which can be brought from the west to the central areas and to East Anglia. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about the feasibility of a contour canal. Feasibility studies of these major works have not been done. They should have been done, and a full feasibility study would be able to prove whether or not these ideas are practicable, although I have great doubts myself as to their practicability.
On the estuarial barrages, the Wash barrage in particular, a full feasibility study should long ago have been put in hand. Desk study is one thing, but it cannot be said that the Wash Barrage scheme is a probability because no engineers have yet gone into it in sufficient depth.
Desalination is a practicability at considerable cost in the not-too-distant future but, on the other hand, no chemists have yet said that the quality of the water which will be produced will be acceptable for potability. This is another highly technical matter upon which we are in the dark.
The possibility of getting water from underground sources, what is called ground water, is illusory. It may be that some will be obtained in the Thames Valley, but my experience is that where ground water is drawn off in large quantities

something happens to the water table, and a great deal of harm is done to the agricultural land which is above those underground reservoirs of water. I would caution hon. Members not to accept too readily the provision of extra water supply by drawing on underground sources.
With regard to the recharging of underground sources, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) spoke about recharging the Lincolnshire limestone. However, no actual recharging of underground aquifers has been done. The Gas Council has investigated the possibilities of storing gas underground, but anything connected with recharging aquifers is a very delicate operation. Again, no practical feasibility studies have been done, and there is no scheme in existence.
I am driven back to the alternative and, quite clearly, it is based on the facts contained in the Water Supplies of South-East England Study carried out by the Water Resources Board. The recommendation of its technical experts, which I accept, is that a reservoir should be built either at Empingham or at Manton. I believe, unfortunately, that the river authority will have to carry out its very difficult duty. It is one which falls upon it as a result of the mechanism of the 1963 Act. The technical situation is that the Water Resources Board has the overall advisory responsibility. It advises the Ministers and the river authorities. In this case, the river authorities have taken its advice under Section 4 of the 1963 Act. They had very little option but to take its advice, and I believe that the case which has been made out on technical grounds is a very strong one.
As I have exhausted all the possible alternatives, I do not feel that we can do other than accept the advice of the Water Resources Board.

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend may have noticed that, in making its recommendations, the Water Resources Board said at the same time that it was urgently necessary that investigations should take place to see whether there were, in future cases, alternatives to surface reservoirs, about which it expressed serious reservations.

Mr. Temple: That is true, and then we come up against the problem of


financing these feasibility studies, which in themselves are a considerable expense.
I will not go too much into actual need, because it has been set out very clearly by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley). I believe that the need based on population expansion and on the increase in consumption per head is very real and can be easily quantified. There is no doubt that the water situation could become extremely acute at any time after 1975. On the pure time-scale of the alternatives, they could not possibly be in existence by 1975, and so I accept that a reservoir at Manton or Empingham, unfortunately, is the right answer. On grounds of cost and on grounds of running expenses, again unfortunately there is no doubt that the Empingham Reservoir is the right one to be chosen in the circumstances.
I have great confidence in the Water Resources Board. In carrying out its duties, it has a very heavy task. I have had the privilege of knowing some of the members of the Board for a number of years. They are dedicated men. They have gone into all the pros and cons of this difficult situation in Central and South-East of England particularly, and I do not think that there is any need for me to recap their conclusions.
It is easy for us to be far-sighted tonight. Unfortunately, the foresight of our forebears was not as good as it might have been. We should not have been put in this position. But, facing the facts of the situation, if we deny this river authority a Second Reading to its Bill, we may well put at hazard not only the lives but the industries of an important area of our country. Weighing up the facts as carefully as I can, I believe that the case has been made out for sending this Bill to a Committee so that it can be examined in detail.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: My hon. Friend the Member for Chester (Mr. Temple) has spoken with charm and understanding of this very difficult problem. We know that he speaks regularly in this House on behalf of the Association of River Boards. However, I have rarely heard him speak in a more unconvincing way than he has this evening. If that is the best case which can be

made for the Bill, then I think that the House would be right to reject it.
We should all agree with my hon. Friend when he talked about the use of non-potable water for industry. Taking Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire and Rutland as a whole, the North Lincolnshire problem will probably be solved in the next few years by taking non-potable water from the Trent in North Lincolnshire. That is particularly important in that it will reduce the demands likely to be made on the Lincolnshire sandstone further south, and that source can then be made available as an alternative supply for the Peterborough and Rutland area.
We should also agree with my hon. Friend when he talks about the reuse of water. I dare say that we all enjoy putting some of the native wine of your country into the water of London. It is necessary, when one remembers that the water has probably been used six times before it comes out of the taps in this House.
In Water Bills, we are all familiar with aldermen—unfortunately, usually aldermen belonging to the Labour Party—appearing as chairmen of their water boards and arguing that it is essential that the House should pass their Bills immediately. This evening, we have heard an alderman of the Northants County Council representing a falling electorate in North-East Leicester saying that expanding population makes this Bill urgently necessary. At least he did not argue that it was necessary for the next two years and that demand was proved.
I am sure that the whole House will agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) made an extremely informative, accurate and hard-worked speech. Indeed, it was probably the best speech on any Water Bill that we have heard for a long time. He said that all claims can prove to be grossly exaggerated. Certainly I cannot see Corby New Town and Development Corporation expanding rapidly under an 8 per cent. Bank Rate. Peterborough is running into the same trouble as King's Lynn, and Northampton has not even started.
What is more extraordinary is that, faced with these doubts in forecast demands, the promoters of the Bill have acted in an extremely surprising manner.


I refer hon. Members in particular to Clause 46, which is concerned with the provision of recreational activities. Not long ago in this House, we had before us the Countryside Bill, which gave local authorities the power to provide recreational facilities. What this House did not give local authorities was any compulsory power to provide recreational facilities. But in the Welland and Nene Bill, the Northamptonshire Water Board six months later asks the House of Commons to give it compulsory powers to acquire recreational facilities in a way that the House has already rejected.
I understand that there has been a change of heart about Clause 46. I mention it because I think it is typical of the forethought, planning and work that has gone into the Bill: "All right, we will add something on. We will tack it on here and if we find that people are against it we will withdraw it." That is to say nothing of the expense involved in briefing counsel, preparing petitions, and solicitors' fees in order to defeat it. If the matter had been properly negotiated, alternative arrangements could have been made.
I will not delay the House long, because we have already heard most convincing arguments from my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford, whose constituency is principally concerned, that the Bill is unnecessary. We know, from paragraph 7 on page 18 of the Fourth Annual Report of the Water Resources Board, that adjacent to Rutland, just south of Gainsborough, there is a considerable untapped reservoir of water in the Lincolnshire limestone. Without having to recharge it, as my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester was suggesting, this water is available in even greater quantities if we decide to use the Trent for industrial purposes for the rest of Lincolnshire.
The House of Commons is always faced with the same problem over Water Bills. It is always told that in the end water boards and industry must have their way. Many hon. Members will remember the case of Teesdale. What a very depressing thing it was to open The Times the next day and see across the Parliamentary page, "Industry wins in Teesdale". This is a very one-sided race, and industry always seems to win.
Unless the House of Commons says "No" to this Bill tonight, alternative sources will not be developed. The promoters of the Bill say that there are not satisfactory alternatives. But we must throw one Bill out to make the water boards get cracking on developing the other sources.
The Treasury line is that the cheapest and easiest way is to continue to push Bills through Parliament annually flooding more and more agricultural land. What are the Ministers doing? Is any study being given to the priority demands for the use of agricultural land? Buildings, roads and industry want more agricultural land. Is it the right priority to use agricultural land for water supply when we have these other competing priorities?
Reference has been made to the future of the Wash barrage. We have only to look at the Appendix to the Report of the Select Committee on Agriculture to see that this has only reached the desk study stage. It does not look as though any party will push forward with this in a very convincing way.
The water boards make up their minds that in two or three years' time they have to start on one of these schemes, and they come along knowing that in the end the Government will say that industry must have its water. The Government will use their Parliamentary majority to push the Bill through. What is so depressing is that if each Member were faced with having a reservoir in his constituency he would vote against it. Therefore, I hope that the House will reject the Bill.

8.33 p.m.

The Minister for Planning and Land (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I think that it might be for the convenience of the House if at this stage I expressed the view of the Government.
I shall not need to detain the House very long to hear what I have to say about the Bill.
Certainly this Water Bill has never been at risk of passing unheralded or unsung. No Bill which sought to divert from agricultural use between 3,000 and 4,000 acres of land, and to effect a dramatic change on such a scale in Rutland, of all places, could expect to escape


close scrutiny; or, indeed, strenuous opposition.
The amount of land this scheme would require and the disturbance entailed to agriculture and to people's way of life has given serious concern to me and to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—just as it has very clearly engaged the attention of the House.
But, at the same time, just as we acknowledge the produce of our farms to be essential and the way of life of our farming communities to be highly prized and not lightly to be set aside, we have also to recognise how dependent we are for life and health and for the productivity of much of our industry upon assured water supplies.
The issue which the Bill raises is by no means a simple one; it is an issue of balancing one set of needs against another. The water engineer who casts his covetous eye upon our pleasant lakes and valleys does so in response to the demands we press upon him every time we turn the bathroom tap.
The promoters of the Bill are a river authority and a water board set up in accordance with the will of Parliament to do certain essential jobs. Their proposal is to store nearly 30,000 million gallons of water to be pumped out of the Rivers Welland and Nene in seasons of plenty. Part of the water so stored would be taken from the reservoir, treated, and put into public supply, and part would be available for increasing the flows of the river system when necessary. One of the benefits from the greater flows would be to increase the quantities of water available for abstraction from the rivers, and probably from underground sources, too. Both public water supply undertakings and private abstractors would stand to benefit from the scheme.
In selecting Empingham as the site for the reservoir the promoters have not acted in any way recklessly or without proper forethought. On the contrary, they have, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) told the House, followed out the recommendation of the Water Resources Board in its Report, "Water Supplies in South-East England," which foresaw a need for at least one reservoir

at either Empingham or Manton. In 1966 preliminary study suggested that reservoirs at the two sites together would be able to produce about 50 million gallons of water per day. As a result of closer study, current estimates are that Empingham alone should produce about that quantity.
The cost of a major scheme of this sort is of course formidable. There is no need for me to dwell upon the attraction of obtaining a higher yield of water for the same investment.
The other attraction of the higher yield is the opportunity that it offers to spread the benefits of the scheme more widely than to the local water undertakers who are the obvious and immediate beneficiaries—the opportunity to redeploy water resources so as to meet other needs and so to enable other investment, and with it other demands upon land, to be deferred, and possibly somewhere along the line to be avoided altogether.
A great deal has been said about alternatives, and I expect the House would wish me to say a word at any rate about what has been said in the debate about a Wash Barrage. I shall not risk your displeasure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by attempting to debate on this occasion the merits of any project which the expression "Wash barrage" would cover. Indeed, until the results of the desk study of the subject are available I do not know what those merits may be. What is abundantly clear, however, as the Report of the Water Resources Board on supplies in the South-East of England shows, is that no Wash barrage project presents, or has ever presented, an alternative to the scheme which is the subject of the present Bill within the time scale which is relewant to the consideration of the Bill.
The Empingham reservoir is intended to deal with the situation envisaged in a period beginning in the mid-1970s. The period to which any Wash barrage could be relevant would be at least a decade later, by which time the yield of Empingham is likely to be fairly fully taken up.

Mr. Maude: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise the anxiety which has been expressed in the House that for another ten or 15 years we shall get a succession of Water Bills for reservoirs in which we are told that the Wash barrage is still 20 years ahead and that


there is no alternative to the Bills. Will something be done about long-term alternatives?

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman has put two questions in one about long-term alternatives generally. I shall have a word to say about that in a moment. On the Wash barrage, obviously we must wait for the results of the desk study, which I hope will not be long delayed, before we can decide to go ahead with a full feasibility study, which in itself is a very expensive exercise.

Mr. Temple: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying that it will not be very long? Is it a matter of months or years?

Mr. Robinson: I am sorry that I cannot be precise about that, but the hon. Gentleman knows that he has the opportunity of putting down Questions on the subject. I certainly could not accept the contention of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis) that a Wash barrage would render Empingham unnecessary.
Reference has also been made to the artificial recharge of underground strata as a possible alternative. Broadly, this means pumping water back into the ground during the wet season, when there is plenty available, for abstraction when river flow is low. This, like a Wash barrage, would in any event come too late for the present need to which the Bill is addressed. The potential of supply from the Great Ouse chalk as replenished by natural percolation is not yet proved, although it is already being investigated and has been taken into account in estimating the deficiency which would have to be met from surface storage.
The further development of the Great Ouse groundwater by artificial recharge would have to follow the initial development and would require detailed investigation over a period of years. A recent recommendation by the groundwater division of the Water Resources Board for investigating the possibility of recharge of the Lincolnshire limestone has not yet been taken up and, when it is, several years of investigation would be needed before the practicability of recharge could be established. Within the period for which the Empingham reservoir is

designed to cater there is, therefore, little prospect of supplies from either of these sources on the scale required.
Finally, a number of hon. Members have mentioned desalination. As the Water Resources Board mentioned in its Fifth Annual Report, the Water Research Association has recently completed a three-year study of the application of desalination to water supply in England and Wales. The Board has since prepared a Report on the likely future of desalination as a supplement to water resources, and it is to be published within the next few weeks. I do not want to anticipate its conclusions but I can say that with existing desalination techniques the cost of a supply all the year round is likely to be nearly double the cost of water from a scheme like Empingham, so that on grounds of cost alone it can hardly be regarded as a viable alternative.
I want to say one other thing about desalination, because it is a favourite alternative among hon. Members who are particularly concerned about the danger to amenities of reservoirs. I beg them to look at pictures of a small-scale desalination plant, which would probably be placed on the coastline—perhaps rather an attractive piece of coastline—and then to imagine a very much larger-scale plant, able to deal with the sort of needs for which a reservoir like Empingham caters; and then to say which method they think is the greater potential danger to amenity.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: We shall deal with the question of the coastline when we come to it in the years ahead. Let us deal with the question before us. On desalination, assuming that there are possibilities, and that the only difficulty is that the cost will be double that which it would cost to produce water from this reservoir, is it not true that we should have desalination plants operating alongside the ordinary reservoirs? We should not do away with the existing reservoirs. We just would not build Empingham, and we should therefore have two types of water supply—the normal one and that produced by desalination. Surely that would not involve too great an increase in costs.

Mr. Robinson: Nobody is ruling out desalination for all time. I am giving the latest position, as I understand it. The


hon. Gentleman would be well advised to await the publication of this Report, which is reasonably imminent. I can appreciate that the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford would not be terribly concerned about the coastline of England.
I want to refer to something said by the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) in his very thoughtful speech. I agree that past Governments, over a long period, have seriously ignored the whole subject of water supplies in the longer term. But I do not think that there is a need for the kind of commission of inquiry which the hon. Gentleman had in mind. Indeed, that is exactly what the Water Resources Board is doing.
At long last, science is being brought to bear on this problem—in my view rather belatedly, but the Board has completed its survey of plots in South-East England, has produced an interim report on water resources in northern England and is expected to produce a final report later this year. It is already engaged on a survey of resources for the Midlands and Wales, and when that is complete almost the whole country will have been surveyed. Meanwhile, we have a working party on sewage disposal at present surveying various methods of disposing of dirty water. There is no occasion to set up a new body, a commission of inquiry, since this long overdue job is being faced and effectively tackled by the Water Resources Board.

Mr. John H. Osborn: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the Water Resources Board has enough authority to back recommendations? This is a point which I want to elaborate later. It has carried out many surveys. Is the relationship between him as Minister and the Board sufficiently definite for us in this modern age?

Mr. Robinson: I have no complaints whatever about the relationship between the Minister and the Board, which is, of course, an advisory body. I would not disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the defects in the Act. He will not be surprised to know that, in the context of this debate, I can give no assurance about when there might be amending legislation, but there are defects which need to be put right in due course in the Water Resources Act.

Mr. Temple: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if the Act had not been defective, this Bill would have been a Ministerial Order?

Mr. Robinson: That is probably the case.

Mr. Maude: I did not intervene when my hon. Friend mentioned this, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that there are many people who do not like the idea of Rutland or anywhere else being flooded by Ministerial Order, without the opportunity for petitions against a Bill.

Mr. Robinson: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but, as an old Parliamentarian, he will know that, when the time comes for Amendments to the Act, they will no doubt be thoroughly and exhaustively debated in the House, and that, if the House does not like what is proposed, it will not be passed.
I must say, in conclusion, that the Floor of the House is not the most appropriate place to consider the detailed issues involved in the Bill. The evidence for and against a Bill cannot be given or examined adequately here. As the House knows, there are several petitions against the Bill, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing will be reporting to the Private Bill Committee. No one doubts that the Bill will receive the most searching and careful consideration in that Committee and I am sure that the Committee will pay particular attention to all the matters which have been and will be raised during the Second Reading debate. Accordingly, I recommend that the House should give the Bill a Second Reading and send it to the Committee.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I do not want to take up too much of the time of other hon. Members, but I thought it appropriate to speak after the Minister.
It is now nearly six years since the Conservative policy for the conservation of water resources was put forward in the Water Resources Act of 1963, a policy which created the 29 river authorities, what one might call the area wáter bankers, and the Water Resources Board, as a sort of central advisory banker. It


has fallen to the lot of the Labour Administration to put that Conservative policy into operation, and the urgency of doing this can be expressed in various ways. Perhaps the shortest way to express it is to remind ourselves that in 30 years' time, by the end of this century, we must have provided new resources, by reservoir or otherwise, totalling 30,000 million gallons per day, and that will cost us about £2,000 million.
When one expresses the requirement in those terms one justifies the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) for a commission of inquiry. The Minister suggested that the Water Resources Board was the right body for this and that we did not need another commission. I am not certain that the Board is the right body. It is a body of technicians, whereas we need a statement of overall policy relating to water resources.

Mr. Temple: My hon. Friend mentioned the alarming cost of £2,000 million for the provision of water. He did not couple with it the astronomical cost that will be involved for the disposal of water, the sewage works and so on. A commission could combine provision and disposal.

Mr. Page: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for adding that point.
We are today considering not some of the more unconventional forms of water conservation but one of the conventional ways—the storing or providing of water in a surface reservoir. We know that the Government are considering unconventional ways, too. There are the feasibility studies which were set up for the Morecambe Bay and Dee Estuary barrages and a considerable time ago there was the Report on the water resources of the Greater Ouse Basin. That described the breathtaking scheme of the Wash barrage, providing 620 million gallons a day from that source. The Government have been pressed time and again to set up a feasibility study for the Wash barrage scheme, and I understand that, belatedly, they have set up what is called a "desk study". That is proceeding, but we do not know how long it will take.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) said that

this was a sad story. Had the Government moved somewhat faster on this imaginative scheme we might not have needed to debate this Measure tonight and we might have been able to say in a few years' time that such a Bill was not necessary. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) argued, even now the Wash barrage might make the Empingham reservoir unnecessary.
We must consider the Bill in the context that the Wash barrage scheme is not a possibility for at least 15 or 20 years. We must consider the figures that have been given about the increase in population, and therefore the increased need for water, in Northampton, Corby, Wellingborough, Daventry, Peterborough and so on. We must also bear in mind what was said in the Report of the Water Resources Board, "Water Supplies in South East England", in which it was stated in paragraph 27:
Even if the ground-water schemes in the Thames and Great Ouse areas are developed successfully as quickly as we hope, there will still be a deficiency in the central area reaching about 20 million gallons per day by 1981. This can be met only by a surface storage scheme. In view of the rate of growth of demand in the Welland and Nene area and its remoteness from the ground-water schemes, it would be preferable to provide the necessary storage in that area by building either the Manton or the Empingham reservoir.
We are, therefore, faced with that recommendation from a Board which this House set up to advise not only the river authorities but Parliament. It is arguable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford said, whether the estimated requirements for the future have been misjudged or exaggerated. It is difficult for us to examine them. Only when witnesses are examined in committee can one inquire into these matters.
We are placed in difficulty in having to examine the figures on Second Reading. As my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester said, it was never intended that these matters should come before the House in a Private Bill, but that the Government should take full responsibility for any scheme of this sort by putting before us a Ministerial Order. That is the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon. If it is done in that way, the Government take full responsibility, and can be questioned on the policy behind it rather than just on the details of a Private Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford put forward what I might call the constituency points, and very strong points they were—the inundation of agricultural land, the displacement of farmers and the cost of the scheme. Obviously, in the short term the costs of alternatives are very great: desalination and, perhaps the Lincolnshire limestone scheme, are schemes that will cost a lot of money—more money than is involved in setting up separate reservoirs. In the long term, however, it may be right to spend the money on investigating, and in starting on non-conventional schemes so that the type of scheme now before us is not overtaken in advance by the progress of technology.
It would have been very much easier for the House if it could have seen the Bill in the framework of the full picture of national policy, particularly on methods other than surface storage. How long are we to go on with surface storage, and producing what has been described as a rash of reservoirs?
I come back to the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester of a commission of inquiry. If the Minister does not think that such a commission is the right method at this stage, can we not have a White Paper on Government policy? The Water Resources Board advises all parties. It is not a body to inform the House of Government policy. It is very necessary now that we should have a full statement of Government policy on water resources, otherwise we shall go on in this rather piecemeal way. I am sure that whichever way hon. Members vote, they will vote with a feeling of dissatisfaction, of lack of knowledge, and of inability to put this Bill in the framework of a sensible national policy.

8.58 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: My constituency lies between the Welland and the Great Ouse. It has the Nene running through its northern half. That means that the lower reaches of all three main rivers mentioned in the Bill concern my constituency.
I, too, should declare an interest. I am a member of the land drainage committee of the Country Landowners' Association, and a paying member of the National Farmers' Union, both of which are petitioning against the Bill. I therefore

have somewhat mixed interests in this Measure. I need hardly say that none of my interests is financial. My particular concern in one matter was aroused by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball), who has now disappeared from the Chamber. That is that the work done by the members of river authorities seemed to me to be gravely reflected upon by him. This is utterly intolerable. The voluntary work which members of river authorities do for the benefit of their fellow men is very considerable. The suggestion that a Bill like this comes forward merely because river authorities like throwing their weight about is absolutely intolerable.
I wish that my hon. Friend were here to hear me say this. I feel very incensed because a number of my constituents serve on river authorities, and served on river boards before them and on the old catchment boards before them. Most of my constituency would not exist were it not for the work which they have done. This goes for any Fenland constituency.
Apart from all that, in the course of my 24 years as a Member of this honourable House I have had occasion to take the Chair in Select Committees on opposed Private Bills dealing with water legislation on more than one occasion. I was chairman for what was perhaps one of the biggest promotions there have ever been. That was the promotion which involved the reorganisation of the entire water supply of England from Towcester in Northamptonshire in the North down to Aldershot in the South-East and Hungerford in the South-West. It was so big that at one stage we got one of the learned counsel representing two conflicting interests simultaneously by mistake. He is now Mr. Justice Thesiger. It was one of the most amusing mornings we have ever spent in Select Committee.
What has impressed me more than anything as a result of having to preside over the Committees on these Water Bills has been their appalling complication and the utter impossibility of a Second Reading debate on such a Bill being able to cover the points which have to be covered before the true merits can be decided. I profoundly agree with the Minister's statement in the concluding part of his remarks that the Chamber is not the place for us to solve these problems. When


one has heard the conflicting presentations, as we have heard from the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis), one realises that there is at least an element of nicely calculated less or more about some of these propositions. When it comes to nicely calculated less or more, there are plenty of people to give excellent advice from both points of view in a Select Committee on an opposed Private Bill. It is rather like walking down Harley Street and calling at every door to find out what is wrong with one. I am prepared to bet that after such an exercise at the far end of the street one would know less about one's real maladies than when one started.
When one hears two conflicting experts on statistics arguing on either side in a Select Committee, it is essential that we have learned counsel now and again to guide us as to the emphasis we should put upon the evidence we hear. The Chamber is not the right place for us to decide these things. That is why I think that we should give the Bill a Second Reading, because the one figure which nobody seems to have mentioned in the course of the debate is by far the most serious of all. It appears in paragraph 10 of the Promoters' Statement. It concerns the number of gallons of water per head that the population is tending to consume every day. At the moment it is about 51 gallons a head. By 1981 it will have increased to 77. By the end of the century it is expected to reach 94 gallons per day for every member of the population.
This is the answer to the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford sought to make. I am sorry that my hon. Friend is not now here. He sought to see an inconsistency between the growth in population and the growth in the demand for water. He left these figures out of his calculations. If he includes them, he will see that, if the population increases as it is forecast that it will increase by the end of the century by 607,000, that increase alone, if it went on consuming water at the rate of 51 gallons a head, which is the present consumption, would be consuming 31 million gallons a day more than is consumed today. If the figure went up to 77 gallons per head per day, they would

be consuming 46·7 million gallons more a day, and if it went up to 94, with the increase of population to 607,000, the daily consumption of that increase would be 57 million gallons more. Yet this scheme is designed to produce only 36 million gallons.
In recent months, I have had the interesting and thoroughly enjoyable, though somewhat exacting, task of carrying out a study of the East of England for my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath). One of the facts which came up over and over again was the appalling position in which Essex now is. Again, I wish to goodness that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford were here to hear me say this. How many of those who have taken part in the debate so far realise that Essex is already rationed for water all too often, and that already it has had to cut down its building programme because of the parlous state of its water supply? It is for that reason that we have the transfer schemes from the Ely-Ouse into the Essex river area. It is desperately necessary.
If hon. Members suppose that we can all wait for the Wash barrage, for desalination, or for reverse osmosis, which, perhaps, may be yet another method, they are not facing facts. Obviously, it would be ideal if we could recast the whole of the United Kingdom. There are a good many cities built in the wrong place because, when they began to become cities, no one had given nearly enough thought to the underground water supplies which would be available. If we could recast the country, doing away with all the pipes and the rest, how perfectly splendid we could make it all. But we cannot do that. We have to face facts, and one fact is that an awful lot of people are already desperately short of water. If we do not have this scheme now, then, in one way or another, there will be a great many more people even more short of water than all too many already are. That is why I say that we have no alternative but to send the Bill to a Committee and wish it well.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: In my view, there have been two rather complacent speeches tonight, one by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley), who introduced the Bill,


and the other by the Minister when replying to some of the points which had been raised. I like and respect the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East, but I must say that his remarks reminded me of a speech which I heard shortly after I first came to the House. The hon. Gentleman said that, in his view, the new reservoir in Rutland would add to the beauty of the county. When I came to the House a few years ago, one of the first speeches I heard was made by an hon. Member who said that, in his view, electricity pylons gave added beauty to the countryside. I can only class the remarks of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East in the same category as that speech which I heard in my early days here.
The Minister seemed to have the extraordinary idea that we who oppose the Bill were chiefly concerned with the beauty of the countryside. Indeed, he said that if we were to consider desalination seriously, it would involve some large plants around the coast, and he asked, in effect, whether we would not rather have a nice lake in Rutland.
The real point made by many of the objectors to the Bill is that it is good farm country which would he covered by water in Rutland. It is not a question of whether we like to see water or desalination plants on the coast. It is almost a question of this country's survival and being able to feed itself if the trend of land use for this, that and the other purpose is allowed to continue.
As I say, my principal concern is about the 3,000 or 4,000 acres of good land in Rutland which would be flooded by the reservoir. In my constituency of Harborough, I have interests, though I shall not list them all, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) did. One of my interests is that the Welland rises in my constituency, and this is something of which I am quite proud.
It is not just that part of Rutland is being taken for water that concerns me, but that coupled with this are all the other schemes for the alternative use of first-class agricultural land today, when every authority competing with another for the use of land for a purpose other than agricultural says that it is a very good idea to conserve it for agriculture,

but that that does not affect the authority concerned. In and around Leicestershire thousands of acres of first-class agricultural land are in jeopardy; 3,000–4,000 acres are threatened by the Bill. We have a doubling in size of Northampton, and we had the enlargement of Peterborough and Corby. It is not just for water storage or building that land is being taken. Many local authorities are still using the best agricultural land for refuse disposal in the Midlands, and in parts of Leicestershire fresh stone quarries covering many acres are still being opened for opencast purposes, again destroying very good agricultural land.
I was lucky enough to be a member of the Select Committee on Agriculture, which finished its proceedings at the end of February. One of the things that concerned us was land use, and the failure of those in authority to pay proper attention to the problem. Conclusion No. VII of the Report deals with land use. As a result of hearing the evidence of many witnesses and getting the feeling of opinion up and down the country, the Committee said:
Much land is taken piecemeal out of agricultural production each year.
That is exactly what is being done in the Bill; it will take good agricultural land out of production piecemeal.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: Hear, hear.

Mr. Farr: I am very glad to be supported by my hon. Friend, who was on the Committee and shared in the production of the Report.
Conclusion No. VII goes on to say:
Good agricultural land is a diminishing national asset and we are not satisfied that adequate consideration is given to the long-term implications in the permanent loss of land from agriculture.
I am not satisfied that the promoters of the Bill are in the slightest bit concerned with whether they use good agricultural land or bad, provided they get it for their purposes.
In our debate on agriculture on Monday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) gave, in his excellent speech, a statistic that I think I can get right from memory because it was so telling. He said that if the population


of this country is to increase by 2 per cent. per annum, as is forecast—

Sir D. Renton: Will my hon. Friend allow me?

Mr. Farr: Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will let me finish, and then he can tell me how inaccurate I am. I believe that the gist of what he said was that if the population increases by 2 per cent. per annum, as is forecast, and yet food production increases by only 1 per cent., as it has in each of the past three years, our grandchildren will be starving. I give way to him with the observation that they will be starving but at the same time having the benefit of a permanent daily bath.

Sir D. Renton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. This gives me an opportunity to apologise to the House, because in order not to take too much time over my speech on Monday I tried to compress what I had to say, which led me into the error of confusing the increase in the world population, which is expected to be 2 per cent. per annum between now and the end of the century, with the increase in this country's population. Therefore, the comparison I made was not completely valid. However, it is a fact that our population is increasing by three-quarters of 1 per cent. per annum, which is all that our food production has increased by in the past four years. Nevertheless, although the figure I gave was wrong, I think that my argument was valid. If world population is increasing by 2 per cent. a year and will double in the next 25 years, and food production may not double, it is obvious that we should be increasing our food production in this country and conserving our farmland.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: What is even more significant is that, given the present reproduction rate, the population of this country will double in 42 years.

Mr. Farr: Those were two relevant interventions and I am grateful to my right and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire and the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson). My right hon. and learned Friend may have been wrong in the

figure he gave last Monday, but he was still perfectly correct in principle. Both interventions have emphasised the validity of my case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford put forward various alternatives. He and other hon. Members who are more skilled than I in this matter have made various suggestions such as a desalination scheme, the recharging of the water storage plateau in Lincolnshire and the possibility of an earlier beginning to the Wash barrage scheme. All these ideas are sound and worthy of the attention of the Government and the House.
What concerns me is that the plans for expanding populations in the East Midlands, included in the brief we have had from the promoters, were drawn up 10 years ago. The plans to produce massive increases in the populations of Northampton, Peterborough and Corby were drawn up 10 years ago. Never mind who were the Government—why was not a feasibility study put in hand then for the Wash barrage scheme?
I believe that the powers that be then, planning for the enlargement of the populations of these areas, must have said to one another, "We shall double Northampton and Peterborough and triple Corby, but never mind about water supplies. Of course we shall need more, but Parliament will let us put reservoirs where we want them." If the Wash barrage feasibility study had been launched then, construction would be taking place in the 1970s instead of in the 1980s, and the necessity for this new reservoir would have been avoided.
I wish to oppose this Bill on the ground that very good land is daily being taken from agriculture for other purposes. I am not satisfied that that trend, which at times is unnecessary, will ever cease, and I believe that Parliament sooner or later must put its foot down and show that, whatever the planners may say, they cannot always take us for granted, that we have minds of our own and that they should have thought about future water supply 10 years ago when they laid out their schemes for expanded populations.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I congratulate the hon. Member


for Harborough (Mr. Farr) on his speech and I am happy to follow him. I should like also to congratulate the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis). After that speech, there is little left to be said by others opposing the Bill, but I want to make one or two remarks which are pertinent.
As there are some hon. Members present who were not in the Chamber when the debate began, I should like to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) has admitted that about 3½ per cent. of the whole area of Rutland is to be inundated. He threw off that figure in a very complacent manner.

Mr. Bradley: I am sure that in fairness my hon. Friend would not like to put me at that kind of disadvantage. I was referring to the strong protests which had been made within the county and which gave the widespread impression that the whole of the county was to be flooded. A sort of hydrological Stansted operation was launched.

Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend and I differ as to the significance which we attach to the figure of 3½ per cent. I regard it as of great significance. My hon. Friend may not be familiar with Rutland. It is suggested that an area of water the size of Lake Windermere should appear in Rutland. It would be completely out of scale. This is not a mountainous area. If it were a proposal for the Lake District, one might suggest that another lake would not matter, that another surface of water among 20 or 30 would not matter. But that type of landscape is not traditional to Rutland. It is an urban intrusion to which I and many others who have any visual sense and who are concerned with our environmental capital rightly and strenuously object.
I should like to remind hon. Members just what a small island we are. In England and Wales we have a population of 47 million. The area is 37·1 million acres, which works out at three-quarters of an acre per person. It is proposed to take away 3,000 acres, but perhaps next month, or in two or three months, we shall have a Bill promoted by the Trent River Authority, or one of the several other water authorities, making similar

demands. This is not a matter which we should treat lightly or with any degree of complacency.
It is worth reiterating that we currently produce about half of our foodstuffs. Our agriculture has been successful in that it has kept pace with the increase in population, but if my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East were to inquire of his colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, they would tell him that the expected rise in production related to the rise in population will taper off in the mid-1970s. We shall then find we are importing more than half our foodstuffs.
The Royal Commission on Population, which reported in the 1940s, was very perceptive in that it warned that an increase in population would bring important economic consequences for our balance-of-payments problem in its wake. I do not think that I have to spell out to hon. Members that the import ratio——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman not only does not have to spell out; he will not be allowed to spell out.

Mr. Jackson: Thank you for correcting me, Mr. Speaker. I hope, nevertheless, that you will allow me to mention in passing that important economic consequences will result from our taking from agricultural use 3,000 acres of land, consequences of which some hon. Members may not be fully aware. This is not a mountainous area, but grade 2 and grade 3 agricultural land.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford suggested various alternatives, and the document produced by the agents does not deal with them satisfactorily. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East, did not deal with the proposal for tapping ground water. This can be done, and I gather that it will be done in the Thames Valley in the early 1970. I do not see why it should not be done in Rutland.
I turn to desalination, which is another alternative put forward. It is recognised in the document which the promoters have addressed to hon. Members that perhaps this will be feasible in the last two decades of the century, but they argue in the preceding sentence that


perhaps it is not feasible now on grounds of cost. They say:
The Water Resources Board have advised that on the grounds of cost desalination is unlikely to play an important part in meeting demands certainly until the early 1980s.
I explained in an intervention that the figures put in by the Water Resources Board, by water engineers, in the early 1960s greatly exaggerated the cost of desalination. They argued in 1963——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not discussing desalination, important as that is, or water supplies in general, important as they are. We are discussing a Bill. The hon. Gentleman must deal with the Bill.

Mr. Jackson: We have heard from other hon. Members a great deal about the techniques of desalination and the cost of water produced through desalination. I am unhappy with the Bill because I feel that the promoters have not considered the alternatives. Desalination is an alternative, and I should like to argue why. I can do so only by quoting the cost——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot do that in detail. He must bring before the House a Private Bill to desalinate water.

Mr. Lubbock: On a point of order. The House is placed in a difficulty because the document sent to us by the promoters goes in detail into the alternatives of the Wash barrage and the various methods of desalination. If we are not permitted to deal with the argument which every hon. Member has in his possession, an adequate debate cannot take place.

Mr. Speaker: We are not discussing the document of the promoters. We are debating a Bill.

Mr. Jackson: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, I shall say no more about desalination, except that it is an alternative which has not been adequately examined by the promoters.
There has been no reprsentation from any of the leisure groups who, it is argued, will benefit from the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East said that the promoters were anxious to provide facilities for fishermen, sailors and

other people who would derive advantages and benefit from the construction of this reservoir. Yet it is significant that two bodies which are principally concerned with amenities—the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and the Ramblers' Association—are bitterly opposed to the Bill.
It is argued in the statement produced by the agents that leisure amenities will be provided. But I, together with, I hope, other hon. Members, are sceptical. This area is not in a national park. It is not in an area of outstanding natural beauty. The demands made on the authority to provide amenities could be considerable, and yet the support given by the Government in grant in aid will be minimal.
In Rutland, the authorities are very small. Their rate revenue is not large. We know from the attitude of the Pembroke County Council that amenities for visitors are not provided. Pembroke has the advantage of 75 per cent. grants. Rutland will not have that advantage. I can understand the representations made by local people that the area will be inundated by town visitors and that the local authority will not provide the necessary amenities. I should feel happier about the Bill if I could be assured that a certain sum of money would be set aside by the Water Board to provide the necessary amenities.
On these grounds I oppose the Bill.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. John Wells: I have an open mind towards the Bill. Some of my hon. Friends are for it, some are against it. I have listened with great respect to the views of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), who has great experience in this matter, and my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), although I am not entirely happy about the pro arguments which my hon. Friends have propounded.
My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester touched lightly on one of the alternatives to the Bill, namely, the contour canal. In the past, this concept has been written off as a crank's paradise, and I will not deal with this at length lest you, Mr. Speaker, lump the contour canal in with desalination. This is an


increasingly viable alternative to what has been called by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) the rash of resorvoirs. The Bill is undoubtedly only the first of several of this pattern unless we are in future to be flooded by Ministerial Orders. I hope therefore that the contour canal will be studied in greater depth.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford in his careful opposition to the Bill mentioned the new towns in the area which were not growing as quickly as the promoters of the Bill declared. Wherever there are new towns there are acres of concrete, acres of tarmac and acres of tiles, with consequent rapid urban run-off, and, therefore, the reservoir propounded in the Bill is not the right sort of reservoir for this area. Small reservoirs of an equalising tank nature would be more useful for flood control. It has been mentioned that the National Farmers' Union has recently applied to the Water Board for a drainage scheme in this very area for the purpose of flood prevention, but that this was turned down. To provide for the increased run-off smaller reservoirs should be constructed and not this mammoth reservoir.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford, in a nice phrase, said that he did not want his constituency to be a towpath round the reservoir. I am anxious lest this water-girt isle should become a towpath round a series of reservoirs. We must look much more carefully at this problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) pooh-poohed the amenity section of the Bill. He said that the amenities would not be used. He inferred that a shallow valley reservoir is a nasty, stinking, smelly place in a dry summer and who would want to go sailing there? I believe he is right. This area is within reach, by the improved roads, of the Norfolk Broads, which is a larger area for boating. I am concerned about the sporting facilities mentioned in Clauses 46 and 47. My hon. Friend the Member for Gains-borough (Mr. Kimball) said that he understood there was some rethinking about Clause 46. I hope, if the Bill goes to a Committee, that the Clause will be re-thought and deleted.
Clause 47 is perfectly deplorable. It is absurd to provide for the compulsory acquisition of a pheasant shoot, a wild duck shoot and the rest of it. It is well known in certain parts of the country that if one wants a good day's pheasant shooting, one accepts an invitation from the manager of the local waterworks. If this compulsory purchase goes through, I hope that any sporting rights will be put out to competitive tender. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I should quickly declare an interest in that I am the tenant of the Forestry Commission in a tract of woodland in my own county.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the case of some reservoirs, the sporting facilities are reserved to certain local clubs? That very materially affects the attitude of the local inhabitants to any Bill. Indeed, this is a point which might be taken up in Committee.

Mr. Wells: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. However, if he looks at a map of the area, he will see that that hardly applies in this case. I deplore the fact that the promoters have not seen fit to circulate a map and that hon. Members have had to get their own from the Library. Hon. Members will see that, at just above the 250 ft. contour mark, which is approximately the area of flooding, there are very few inhabitants. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford indicated that only 28 farms would be flooded. The remaining farms making up the 40-odd are in other areas. As a sweetener to the locals, the sporting amenities are a limited one. I think that they are really meant as a sweetener to the good people of Oakham or wherever it may be in the neighbourhood. In the height of the fishing season, the lake will be surrounded by stinking mud, and I am sure that people will not want to go there. I hope that this myth of the amenity Clauses will be looked at again.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely spoke about the increasing rate of water consumption, and he gave some very impressive figures. However, I believe that this increasing rate of water consumption will level out. People in this country are always behind the Americans in terms of plumbing. I had a shower bath yesterday morning, and I put—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will not be out of order if he talks about the Bill.

Mr. Wells: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. My point is that I put the plug in the bath and, when I had concluded my shower, there was only a wartime warm-water bath left. If people take to shower baths rather than the sort of baths that we usually have, the water consumption per house, which is rising at the moment, will reduce.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to the Bill.

Mr. Wells: The figures that have been quoted of rising water consumption in households may well prove to be mythical in the future. As for the figures for industrial use, which again were quoted by my hon. Friend in support of the Bill, I believe that they, too, are probably mythical. There will be and must be an increasing examination on a national basis of a two-quality water system. Potable water is one thing, and industrial water is another.
On balance, having listened closely and respectfully to my two hon. Friends, I come down against the Bill. I feel that the agricultural and amenity arguments which have been put forward in support of it are bogus.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. Tom Boardman: This Bill has caused me a good deal of anxiety. I started by being opposed to it when it was first mooted, for the reasons which have been ably expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) and others. But, with a somewhat heavy heart, I have come to the conclusion that it is necessary. It is not the technical arguments that have convinced me, because there has been no opportunity to consider them. It is not the figures either, because we have had arguments about the different interpretations to be placed upon them. However, these are matters which I hope will be considered more fully in Committee. I hope, too, that the various alternatives that have been put forward will be equally fully considered, because there are other means of accumulating water to supply the growing cities of this country, rather than taking vast acres of good

agricultural land. I regret that these have not been probed more thoroughly in the past.
I had hoped to hear that some immediate action was being taken on the investigation of this problem, but the Minister's words were disappointing. He used phrases such as "It will not be long before … We are not yet certain … We have not yet taken up" in connection with various of the proposals put forward. I will not refer to them, Mr. Speaker, because you have ruled them out of order.
What has convinced me that I must support the Bill is that I cannot argue against the need. There is a need and an ever-growing demand for water for industry. In this connection, I suggest that greater use be made of the recirculation of water to avoid the great waste that we get. Industrial processes are making increasing demands on our water supplies. There is also an ever-increasing demand for domestic water. Figures have been quoted going up from 57 to 94 gallons per day. We do not know whether they are right or wrong. All right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that more and more of our constituents are using a greater amount of water for washing machines, greater degrees of hygiene, and all the rest. Therefore, I could not say that those figures are wrong. Also, increasing numbers of houses are being built in certain areas.
I am conscious of a constituency interest. Representing one part of the City of Leicester, I share the same interest as the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) who spoke first in the debate. For these reasons, I feel that I must support the Bill. However, I hope that the alternatives will be considered.
There is a particular irony which I am sure the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East will note. Leicester, which will be served by this reservoir, is a city harassed by floods. One of my hon. Friends suggested that these two problems might be linked together: we might get rid of the flood water which fills up the houses during the winter whilst the city may ultimately suffer from thirst during the summer. These problems have to be looked at.
I hope that we will have assurances from the Government that investigation of


some of the ideas that have been put forward will be actively pursued. There is a need for water. I deeply regret that this need can be met only by taking valuable agricultural land and destroying the amenities of parts of our beautiful countryside. I hope that this will be the last occasion on which the House will be faced with the dilemma of having to destroy such land or allowing our cities and towns to suffer from thirst.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I think that the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) has been very fair in putting both sides of the case and in saying that, having balanced the needs of the citizens of Leicester and the other towns which will be desperately short of water in a few years against the requirements of agriculture and of rural amenities in the county of Rutland, he has come to the conclusion that the Bill ought at least to be allowed to go into Committee where these arguments can be further developed.
Having listened to most of the discussion, and being an impartial outsider with no axe to grind, I am disposed to agree with the hon. Gentleman that the arguments which have been deployed are far too complex to be explored across the Floor of the House, and would be more suitably dealt with in a Committee upstairs where expert evidence could be given and such conflicts as have arisen between the figures quoted by hon. Members could be explored in depth.
I have read the promoters' Memorandum very carefully. I see that they expect the population of Corby to increase from 45,000 to 75,000 by 1981, and to 100,000 by the year 2000. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) disagreed with that estimate and gave some alternative figures. If one is looking as far into the future as the year 2000 one can make mistakes. But we can see what has happened in the past in Corby. We have been told that its population has trebled in the last 20 years. An increase from 75,000 to 100,000 between 1981 and 2000 is a very much smaller rate of increase than has been experienced in Corby since the war. I think, therefore, that possibly the promoters are trying to be fairly modest in their estimates and are not

exaggerating the difficulties which this town and others mentioned in the Memorandum will encounter over the next few years.
If one did not make suitable provision at this stage and then one found that the population increased even more rapidly than expected, it would be too late to do anything about that, because a reservoir of this type will take many years to construct. It will take many years to go through all the procedures, the design work, getting out tenders, and completing all the various steps which have to be taken before a large project of this kind can be set in motion. If we were to discover that the population estimates in the Memorandum, far from being too high, as the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford says, were too low, we should be in a truly desperate situation.
I was much impressed by what the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) said about the situation which has arisen in the County of Essex and other parts of South-East England. I always listen with great respect to the hon. Gentleman when he speaks on this subject, because he has a deep knowledge of it. He said that he had recently undertaken a comprehensive survey of South-East England on behalf of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and that on the basis of that study he had come to the conclusions that he gave to the House. I think that we ought to take seriously what the hon. Gentleman said.
I regret the loss of agricultural land. No one can see 3,600 acres disappearing under water without considering the implications of that for food production and our balance of payments. I accept everything that has been said on this subject, but what might possibly be considered by the House as against that is the loss of industrial production which might result if water supplies were not available to the industries in the area. This is why I asked the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford whether he could tell us anything about the supplies of water for the steel industry in Corby, apart from supplies for other users in the area who may be served by this reservoir. The hon. Gentleman said that the steel industry had its own reservoirs and that it abstracted water from them without impinging on the sources of


supply available to domestic users and other industries in the area.
If the hon. Gentleman says that, I am sure it is true, but over the period during which this reservoir will supply water, going up to the early 1980s, surely the steel industry will not stand still? New methods of production will be developed which may require additional supplies of water, and one hopes that as the economy of this country expands, albeit very slowly, the need for steel will also expand. In fact, steel production has risen considerably in the last year and I dare say that this will have as great an effect on Corby as on other steel towns.
Then there is the question of the new towns. It may be that industrial development certificates will not be awarded in great profusion in this area, as the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford said, but that does not mean that no industrial development can take place. Developments which take up less than a certain floor area may be permitted without the award of an I.D.C., and many smaller companies expand by using this method. They do not suddenly double or treble the size of their factories; they add a little at a time, as their rate of production increases and as they find more markets. I think that the hon. Member will find that in this area, many of these smaller industries—not huge works like the steel works in Corby, but light engineering and industries of that kind—will want to expand without the necessity of applying for I.D.Cs.
This is where some of the new population will be working in the areas covered by the construction of this reservoir, and they will need these additional water supplies. It will not be the great new industries of Birmingham which attract people to this area; it will be the smaller companies which, I hope, will sustain the level of employment there.
As to amenity, it seems to me that the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, which has furnished a memorandum to the House, is rather unrealistic about the uses which may be made of a reservoir. In my opinion a reservoir, if properly handled, can be an extremely valuable rural amenity, of great benefit to the people in the area. Some

years ago I lived in South Derbyshire. I wish that the hon. Member for the High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) were here; I am sure that he would be aware of the reservoir to which I wish to refer—that immediately adjacent to Melbourne, in Derbyshire. The surrounding countryside is not of great scenic beauty, but there was opposition to the construction of this reservoir, as there is always opposition anywhere. However, after it had been completed and the facilities available could be judged by the members of the public living in the area, they were all quite pleased with it. I had car parks immediately adjacent to the water's edge, so that motorists could picnic there. Fishing was allowed and I rather think that boating was allowed. Many other rural pursuits were available which the local people had not had before.
When I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) and asked whether he did not consider that these facilities would be particularly valued by the people living in the surrounding area if they were given special privileges, he said that only 24 farmers would be displaced. He did not think that the provision of fishing rights would make much difference to their attitude. I was not thinking only about those who occupy farms or cottages in the area to be covered by the water; as I understood the speech of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, this reservoir is opposed by practically the whole county, and not merely those who will be dispossessed.
I urge the promoters of the Bill to consider, in Committee, making special facilities available to the whole county of Rutland and to any fishing or boating societies that may be there for the benefit of all the inhabitants. I believe that this would make a considerable difference to the view which local people take of the Bill.
The alternatives suggested by the objectors to the Bill are not very realistic. The Council for the Preservation of Rural England talks about
insufficient account having been taken of modern engineering techniques which will permit other measures to be taken with scarcely any ill effects, which your petitioners strongly believe will occur from the taking of land for the reservoir.


I take it that this reference is to the scheme for the Wash barrage, to desalination and to the replenishment of underground aquifers which have been referred to.
I only wish that desalination were an alternative to this reservoir. In spite of what the Minister said, such schemes need not have a tremendous effect on the beauty of the seaside if the plants are put there. What he has in mind is the kind of schemes that one sees in Kuwait and other very hot areas, which are not necessarily the same as would be designed by some of our foremost engineering companies if they were given the task of fitting them into an English landscape. Much progress has already been made by such companies as Weir Westgarth and Simon Engineering in the techniques of desalination and this is already providing a good market in areas like Kuwait and the Middle East for these companies.
As yet, however—the Minister is correct in this—there is no economic prospect of such schemes breaking even in comparison with more conventional techniques for the production of water in this country. The promoters are being optimistic in implying that such schemes could become economic in the early 1980s. I should like to believe that, but we have still a long way to go before schemes which are perfectly economic in areas like the Middle East become so in a place where there is as much rain as there is here.
As for the Wash barrage, it may be that, if a feasibility study had been conducted 10 years ago, we might now be able to begin the construction of such a scheme and render unnecessary not only this reservoir but many of the others which have been the subject of Private Bills in the last few years and which no doubt will continue to have to be discussed until such large-scale schemes are undertaken.
But that is crying over spilt milk, because this study was not undertaken under a Tory Government, and the present Government have been also very slow about barrage schemes in general.

Division No. 150.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Anderson, Donald
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)


Archer, Peter
Bradley, Tom
Buchan, Norman


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James


Beaney, Alan
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Carmichael Neil

Sir D. Renton: Of course, it was not until this Government came to power that the Water Resources Board recommended a feasibility study of the Wash.

Mr. Lubbock: That is true, but it would not have been necessary to wait for the Water Resources Board for such a feasibility study to be done, or at any rate a desk study, such as has been referred to. Mr. Harry Teggin, a reputable architect, published a scheme on the Wash barrage which would have had other implications apart from the enormous amounts of water—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the Wash barrage now: we are discussing this Bill.

Mr. Lubbock: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was only saying that it was not just the Water Resources Board's recommendation which we had to go on but the recommendations of many private experts which have been made to the Government on this scheme and which have been ignored until recent years. I am glad to say that something is moving now, but it is 10 years too late.
For these reasons, and because the arguments are so complex and because there have been differences of opinion between hon. Gentlemen about the figures and the technical merits of this scheme—I have given my own opinion on this—it is right that the Bill should be allowed to go into Committee. If that is done, the experts can be called in to give evidence, there can be proper examination and if, on reflection, the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford is found to be correct, the Bill could be rejected or substantially amended. I have made my own suggestions as to how this could be done.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Bradley rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 69.

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Norwood, Christopher


Chapman, Donald
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Malley, Brian


Coe, Denis
Hoy, James
Peel, John


Concannon, J. D.
Hunter, Adam
Pentland, Norman


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hynd, John
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Dalyell, Tam
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rees, Merlyn


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Judd, Frank
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dell, Edmund
Lawson, George
Roebuck, Roy


Dobson, Ray
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Rose, Paul


Doig, Peter
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dunnett, Jack
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lomas, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Eadie, Alex
Loughlin Charles
Silverman, Julius


Ellis, John
Lubbock, Eric
Skeffington, Arthur


English, Michael
McBride, Neil
Small, William


Ennals, David
McCann, John
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
MacColl, James
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Macdonald A. H.
Taverne, Dick


Fernyhough, E.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Temple, John M.


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackintosh, John P.
Tinn, James



Maclennan, Robert
Urwin, T. W.


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Varley, Eric G.


Ford, Ben
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Fowler, Gerry
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Wallace, George


Freeson, Reginald
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Watkins, David (Consett)


Ginsburg, David
Mendelson, J. J.
Wellbeloved, James


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Millan, Bruce
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Whitlock, William


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Hannan, William
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Harper, Joseph
Morris, John (Aberavon)



Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Moyle, Roland
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Haseldine, Norman
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mr. William Hamling and


Hattersley, Roy
Murray, Albert
Mr. Alfred Morris.




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Bell, Ronald
Glover, Sir Douglas
Percival, Ian


Bidwell, Sydney
Goodhew, Victor
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Biggs-Davison, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Pym, Francis


Black, Sir Cyril
Hastings, Stephen
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hawkins, Paul
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Body, Richard
Hay, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Booth, Albert
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Iremonger, T. L.
Ridsdale, Julian


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Carlisle, Mark
Kimball, Marcus
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Corfield, F. V.
Lane, David
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Stodart, Anthony


Doughty, Charles
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Eden, Sir John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Emery, Peter
Maude, Angus
Weatherill, Bernard


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Eyre, Reginald
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Farr, John
Monro, Hector
Wiggin, A. W.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Williams, Dudley (Dudley)


Fortescue, Tim
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Neave, Airey
Mr. Kenneth Lewis and


Gardner, Tony
Orme, Stanley
Mr. Peter M. Jackson.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

Division No. 151.]
AYES
[10.8 p.m.


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)


Archer, Peter
Buchan, Norman
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Dell, Edmund


Beaney, Alan
Carmichael, Neil
Dobson, Ray


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Chapman, Donald
Doig, Peter


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Coe, Denis
Dunnett, Jack


Boyden, James
Concannon, J. D.
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)


Bradley, Tom
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Eadie, Alex


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dalyell, Tam
Ellis, John


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Ennals, David

The House divided: Ayes 114, Noes 66.

Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Fernyhough, E.
Lomas, Kenneth
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Loughlin, Charles
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lubbock, Eric
Rose, Paul


Ford, Ben
McBride, Neil
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Fowler, Gerry
McCann, John
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
MacColl, James
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Freeson, Reginald
Macdonald, A. H.
Silverman, Julius


Ginsburg, David
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Skeffington, Arthur


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Maclennan, Robert
Small, William


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Taverne, Dick


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Temple, John M.


Hannan, William
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Tinn, James


Harper, Joseph
Mendelson, J. J.
Urwin, T. W.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Millan, Bruce
Varley, Eric G.


Haseldine, Norman
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Hattersley, Roy
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Hunter, Adam
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hynd, John
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Wallace, George


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Moyle, Roland
Watkins, David (Consett)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wellbeloved, James


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Murray, Albert
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Judd, Frank
Norwood, Christopher
Whitlock, William


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Peel, John
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Lawson, George
Pentland, Norman
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Mr. William Hamling and


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Rees, Merlyn
Mr. Alfred Morris.




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bell, Ronald
Hastings, Stephen
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bidwell, Sydney
Hawkins, Paul
Pym, Francis


Biggs-Davison, John
Hay, John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Black, Sir Cyril
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Body, Richard
Iremonger, T. L.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Kimball, Marcus
Ridsdale, Julian


Carlisle, Mark
Lane, David
Roebuck, Roy


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Doughty, Charles
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Eden, Sir John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Emery, Peter
Maude, Angus
Stodart, Anthony


English, Michael
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Weatherill, Bernard


Eyre, Reginald
Monro, Hector
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Farr, John
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wiggin, J.


Fortescue, Tim
Neave, Airey
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Orme, Stanley



Gardner, Tony
Osborn, John (Hallam)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Percival, Ian
Mr. Kenneth Lewis and


Glover, Sir Douglas
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Mr. Peter M. Jackson.


Goodhew, Victor

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

Orders of the Day — WALSALL CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Readings deferred till Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING, HAMSTERLEY COLLIERY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

10.17 p.m.

Mr. David Watkins: This Adjournment debate has come on a little earlier than I expected and, judging by the Front Bench at the moment, it seems that it has come on a little earlier than my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government expected.
The subject which I am raising is the refusal of the Minister of Housing and Local Government to approve house building at Hamsterley Colliery. Hamsterley Colliery is a village in the northern part of County Durham, and very pleasantly situated in the scenically superb valley of the River Derwent. Among people in the area, there is a considerable desire to live there. Only a short distance down the main road upon which the village stands is the settlement known as Hamsterley Mill, an area of housing development at an expensive level, the whole area being one in high demand and most attractive. It might be more accurate to describe the subject that I am raising as the extraordinary refusal of my right hon. Friend to approve the house building which was applied for, because it was a decision that followed upon a public inquiry at which every single piece of evidence was in favour of the application.
Before talking in more detail about the public inquiry, I want to refer to the county development plan for County Durham. When the plan was drawn up in the early 1950s all the land in the county was divided into four categories, labelled A, B, C and D. Broadly speaking, the basis on which these categories were decided was the expected trend in population. Hamsterley Colliery came into category D, which meant that it was an area where it was expected that there would be a considerable decline in the population. That would appear to have been a perfectly reasonable assumption when the development plan was drawn up, because the village was then

wholly dependent for its economy and existence on the local colliery, which provided employment for almost all the men, and the means of livelihood for almost the entire village. Because a decline was expected, no development of any sort was permitted, this being usual under category D. Eventually, with the rundown of the colliery, the reserves of which were already known to be approaching their end, the village would have gone completely out of existence.
But since the county development plan was drawn up there has been a considerable change in circumstances at Hamsterley. The colliery closed a little more than a year ago, but, manifestly, the village did not die with the colliery as had been expected. In the meantime, sources of alternative employment have come to the village. It is interesting to note that when the pit closed only 60 of the 220 men employed in it lived in the village. It was apparent that the expected decline in population arising from the reduction of employment facilities had not taken place.
As I have said, it is a pleasant village. It has very good amenities, as village life goes, and, above all, it is not a remote settlement but is situated on the main road between Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Consett. It enjoys excellent communications and has very good bus services to all the places of employment and all the centres of population around and about.
Having regard to all the changed circumstances, the Consett Urban District Council applied last year for planning permission to replace 50 prefabricated bungalows, which had just about reached the end of their life, with permanent dwellings. At the same time, the National Coal Board applied for planning permission to develop another small area of land in the village. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government decided, in view of all the circumstances, to hold a public inquiry into these applications, and the inquiry was held on 10th September last year at Consett.
As I have already said, at the public inquiry every piece of evidence presented was in favour of the applications for development. Most important of all, the


county council, which is the planning authority, supported the applications. The county council, which, of course, originally drew up the county development plan in which Hamsterley was put in category D, itself supported the application for development to take place there. No evidence of any sort was presented against the applications. There was total unanimity in favour of the applications.
Notwithstanding, the inspector conducting the inquiry rejected the applications as being
… not in the best interests of the county as a whole".
In his report, he accepted as matters of fact practically all the points that were put forward in regard to the changing circumstances which had justified the applications being made. He nevertheless recommended the rejection of the applications and, of course, the Minister accepted that recommendation.
Arising from this, I want to pose some questions. What are these alleged "best interests" of the county as a whole, since no evidence of them was presented at the public inquiry? Where did any evidence come from which was not presented at the inquiry and which indicated these so-called "best interests"? I repeat that the county council, which is, after all, the custodian of the best interests of the county as a whole, supported the applications. Was any evidence considered secretly other than what was presented at the inquiry? Was the inspector "nobbled", if I may use that word, in connection with the inquiry? If so, by whom, and for what purpose?
If any of these things did happen, they would, of course, have been quite improper, and if any evidence was taken into account that was not presented at the inquiry, which was set up for the express purpose of considering the evidence, this would be so improper that I should have to ask my hon. Friend to declare the findings of the inquiry null and void.
Even if none of these things did happen, it still seems to me to be a profoundly improper decision, because it was taken quite contrary to all the evidence presented at a public inquiry instituted and held in order to hear the case. Either way it seems to me a quite

indefensible decision, and I invite my hon. Friend to declare that in the circumstances the decision and the findings are null and void.
I do not for one moment consider that the case of Hamsterley Colliery is closed. Durham County Council is in the process of having another look at the county development plan and has invited all the district councils in the country to submit their observations on the categorisation of the various settlements within their own districts in order that these can be considered at county level. In response to this invitation from the county council, Consett Urban District Council is proposing to submit a comprehensive plan for the redevelopment of Hamsterley and the little stretch of the Derwent Valley in which the village is situated.
The proposals would involve the demolition, which is generally acceptable, of some other outlying settlements which are also in category D and for the retention of which a case could not be made. What is proposed is to demolish certain of the more outlying communities to remodel Hamsterley in a scheme of comprehensive development, bearing in mind employment opportunities, the excellence of the communications to all the major centres of industry and population, and the demand to live in this very pleasant corner of County Durham. Having all these points in mind, it is the intention of Consett Urban District Council to submit proposals for such a comprehensive redevelopment of Hamsterley and the alteration of its categorisation in category D.
The decision which was taken at the public inquiry was wrong and was contrary to every piece of evidence then presented. I do not consider the matter to be closed. I look forward in due course to seeing in the comprehensive development plan for the area which the district council is to present the re-categorisation of Hamsterley and the coming to fruition of the comprehensive redevelopment proposals.

10.32 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): By the letters which he has written to the Department and by the questions which he has put to us and certainly by his speech


tonight, my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) has become known as one deeply and personally involved in the future of this village. The House will share my view that his personal identification with the problem of the future potential of the village and his effort to rescue it from its categorisation are noteworthy and humane. I am sorry that on planning grounds and on the general concept of the Durham plan of the category D villages scheme I cannot tell my hon. Friend that here and now we are to recategorise the village as he would like. I cannot do so for several reasons, some legal and some practical.
I can best serve the House by referring first to the general background to this problem in a very difficult area of the county. The county council's village regrouping scheme has been in existence for a long time. It was one of the most contentious of the county's proposals in its development plan, but the county has stuck to it for many years. There was an attempt in the development plan, which was submitted to the Minister in 1951 and approved in 1954, to make certain categories of villages. I will explain the reasons.
This is a county which has been closely bound up with exploitation of coal, and all the effects of the coal industry are deeply ingrained in the whole history of the county and the lives of so many of its inhabitants. As the nature of the contribution of the coal industry changed, it left a large number of settlements—some villages, some small towns, some not much more than rows of houses—which had been created round the pithead. I do not know Durham as well as my hon. Friend and perhaps other hon. Members, but I have visited Durham several times, specifically last year when the villages were being considered, and I know that the county is encompassed by a large number of settlements arising from the development of the coal industry.
In 1951, 18 years ago, the county put forward in its development plan a policy to avoid dissipating cash resources and services, and to concentrate future development at a certain number of selected points. As a general principle, this was probably right having regard to the large number of settlements. Such a policy would ensure that modern facilities

could be provided in sizeable urban centres, and so prevent the drift of population. It would enable some settlements to be cleared and ensure that services and resources were better used in centres which had houses which were not so old and where expansion could be achieved. This is a commonsense policy which has commended itself to successive Administrations.
Hamsterley Colliery was included in Category D in the 1951 plan. The reasons originally given for the classification were the decline in population, future lack of local work, the poor condition of much of the existing property, the lack of social facilities and the poor siting of the settlement. Although Hamsterley Colliery has a much better siting than many, and good communications, paragraph 6 of the written analysis of the re-examination of the plan in 1964 re-endorses the general sentiments to which I have referred and which were felt still to apply to the village about which my hon. Friend has shown such deep and human concern. Although the village is better than many in attractive siting and having good communications, the planners would say that it is not a well sited community because it extends for almost a mile on either side of a busy main road and lies on a steep north facing slope of the Derwent Valley. The very nature of this siting makes redevelopment or expansion both physically difficult and, I imagine, very expensive. I do not think that my hon. Friend will deny that much of the residential and business property is old and in poor condition. I am aware that there has been a recent extension to a Roman Catholic primary school and that there is a new factory employing some 50 persons. Certainly those are new factors to take into account. But the colliery, which once employed over 230 people, finally closed in February of last year.
This settlement, Hamsterley Colliery, is only three-quarters of a mile north-east of Ebchester, which is a category B village; that is, one where new development is permitted. Consett and Rowlands Gill, the nearest category A settlements, are each about three miles away. So, even if the kind of change that my hon. Friend would like has not been recommended and certainly not approved by the Ministry, Hamsterley


Colliery is near places where development is permitted and near two category A settlements.

Mr. David Watkins: Notwithstanding what my hon. Friend has said, there is a great deal of good-standard long-life residential property in the village. No one wants to preserve the old and unsatisfactory property to which he has referred. However, he has said that the village is only three miles from Consett. Bearing in mind the excellent communications, and the fact that many people like to live in villages if communications are good, does that no strengthen the case?

Mr. Skeffington: Those are factors which I would not want to ignore. This is a matter of finally making up one's mind, in the light of the facts, whether or not the original concept of the county should be supported. I agree that there are these features to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.
Turning to the history of the case and why the Minister took the decision that he did, I come to August, 1967, when two planning applications were referred to the Minister by the county council because it considered that they were departures from the development plan. One was submitted by Consett Urban District Council and was for the erection of permanent houses on land occupied by temporary bungalows. The other was submitted by the National Coal Board.
The Minister was informed that the county planning committee thought that the applications might be approved in these two cases. This seemed to be a considerable departure from what had hitherto been the accepted policy for a very long time—accepted by the county and supported by Ministers of Planning of previous Administrations.
In the circumstances, the Minister thought it right to hold a public inquiry where evidence could be heard. An experienced inspector was sent to listen to the cases which were made. I think that it is important to bear in mind what the inspector said in his conclusions after listening to the evidence and visiting the site. Having set out the facts, he said:
Bearing in mind the above facts, I am of the opinion that, although these applications are relatively limited in scope, they raise an issue which is much wider … I accept that some of the reasons for not including Hamsterley Colliery in the list of settlements where development should be permitted are not so

strong today as when the county development plan was approved in 1954 because of the clearance of old housing and the new employment opportunities. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the aim of the policy can only be achieved if development is continued to be concentrated in the selected larger settlements such as Hamsterley Colliery's near neighbour, Ebchester.
In other words, the policy of not dissipating resources and services ought, in the Inspector's view, to continue.
The inspector's last finding in paragraph 32 is:
Under these circumstances, despite the strong community spirit"—
I think that everbody recognises this, and it was my impression when I visited the area last year—
the very strong local support for these applications and the weight of the special load factors, I consider that to allow these applications would not be in the best interests of the county as a whole.
The inspector meant that if we allowed this sort of development we should go back on what had been the settled planning policy of concentrating development on a certain number of settlements.
This report was very carefully considered by the Minister. I am sure that my hon. Friend does not suggest that we did not consider it very carefully. Indeed, I was fortunate in being able to see a number of category D villages and other types of village where development was to be encouraged. The Minister, having considered the inspector's report, decided that it should be upheld and that the long settled policy of both the county and previous Governments should be upheld. For that reason, the two applications were refused.

Mr. Graham Page: What seems puzzling is that there were already prefabs there and this was merely a replacement. It seems, therefore, that the policy is not merely to stop development but to run down the village, because this is refused replacement.

Mr. Skeffington: The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) knows that one result of this categorisation will be that many of these——

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at thirteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.